Module in Religious Study

St.
Mary’s College of Catbalogan

(formerly Sacred Heart Coleege)
Cor. Mabini and Rosario Sts. Catbalogan City, Samar
MODULE IN RELIGIOUS STUDY

MODULE NO.Page
1 |1
(FIRST WEEK)
Prepared by:
Mr. Arjel Froilan Verba
Dearest;
Praised be Jesus and Mary!
“For [God], you have worth; you are not insignificant. You are important to Him, for you
are the work of His hands. That is why He is concerned about you and looks to you with
affection.” He loves you not because of our perfection, our Lord loves you despite your
weaknesses and failures. No matter what happens in your life, never doubt that, at every
moment you are infinitely loved.
-Pope Francis
Module no. 1
St. Mary’s College of Catbalogan
CHAPTER I
Page | 2
LESSON 1: THE VARIOUS ATTACKS AGAINST CATHOLICISM
A. The Condemnation Against “Vain Repetitions”

B. The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary
C. The infallible Authority of the Magisterium
D. Call No Man Father on Earth
E. The Sacrament of Confession
F. The Tradition of the Church
G. The Role of Mary in The Church
H. Salvation
LEARNING OBJECTIVE
At the end of this chapter learners are expected to:
1. Understand their faith and belief
2. Defend their faith from other sects
3. Explain with understanding their faith
PRE-TEST
Direction: Get another answer sheet to answer the question below and write the correct
letter of the answer.
1. Which of the books below are inspired?
a. Qur’an
b. Hindu Vedas
c. Bible
d. All of the above
2. It is the authority to teach religious doctrine.
a. Scripture
b. Magisterium
c. Gospel
d. License
3. He is the one the decides the teaching of the church.
a. Cardinal
b. Bishop
Module no. 1
c. Priest
Page | 3
d. Pope
4. The pope can only err in the field of;
a. Moral
b. Faith
c. Science
d. Politics
5. He is the successor of St. Peter
a. Pope
b. Bishop
c. Priest
d. Deacon
6. which of the choices below is a dogma;
a. The visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth
b. The perpetual virginity of Mary
c. Our lady of sorrow
d. None of the above
7. Ever-virgin meant;
a. Virgin before
b. Virgin during
c. Virgin after
d. All of the above
8. It is one of the longest defined dogmas of the church;
a. The perpetual virginity of Mary
b. Mary giving birth to Jesus
c. Mother of perpetual help
d. None of the above
9. How many Marian dogmas do we have?
a. 4
b. 3
c. 2
d. 1
10. After giving birth t0 Jesus did Mary remain a virgin?
a. No
b. Maybe
c. Yes
d. Who knows
11. What is the prayer that the Lord teaches us?
a. Lord’s Prayer
Module no. 1
b. Apostle Creed
Page | 4
c. Hail Mary
d. Fatima Prayer
12. It is the strong belief in God or doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual
apprehension rather than proof.
a. Belief
b. Faith
c. Grace
d. Tradition
Opening Prayer:
Creator of all things, true source of light and wisdom, origin of all being, graciously let a
ray of your brilliance penetrate into the darkness of my understanding and take from me
the trouble in which I have been born, an obscurity of both sin and ignorance, give me
sharp sense of understanding, retentive memory, and the ability to grasp things
correctly and fundamentally.
Grant me the talents of being exact in my explanations, and the ability to express myself
with thoroughness and charm. Point out beginning, direct the progress, and help in the
contemplation. We ask this through Christ our Lord Amen.
CHAPTER I
INRODUCTION:
It is very important for us catholic to know our faith so that we could stand our ground
of what we believed. Faith is the strong belief in God or doctrines of a religion, based on
spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Though we don’t need to prove our faith in
order for us to embrace it but we cannot deny the fact that our faith is shakable. And
once it is shaken, we are starting to doubt our faith that we are now searching for a proof
to build again our faith. Thus, in this chapter we will be learning the reason behind our
faith.
Module no. 1
Page | 5
LESSON PROPER
A. The Condemnation against “Vain Repetitions”
Broadly, Roman Catholicism differs from other Christian churches and

denominations in its beliefs about the sacraments, the roles of the Bible and tradition,
the importance of the Virgin Mary and the saints, and the papacy and these prayers that
we are always repeating.
What are those prayers?
Those prayers are, The Our Father, The Apostle’s Creed, The Hail Mary, and the like.
Our brothers and sister who aren’t Catholic would say that repeating these prayers are
so unbiblical because even Jesus condemned this kind of formula. Just like in;
Matthew 6:7 And in praying do not heap up empty phrases [KJV: “vain

repetitions”] as the Gentiles [KJV: “heathen”] do; for they think that they will be heard
for their many words.
Sirach 7:14 Do not prattle in the assembly of the elders, nor repeat yourself in your
prayer.
But the real question is,

Did Jesus Condemn All Formal and/or Repetitious Prayers (Like the Rosary and the
Mass)?
Jesus shows even in the immediate context that not all repetition in prayer whatsoever
is precluded, because two verses later He instructs them how to pray by teaching them
the Lord’s Prayer (the “Our Father”). Obviously, when He says, “Pray then like this,” He
clearly doesn’t mean just one time. He means habitually — and indeed many church
services (like the Mass) regularly pray the Lord’s Prayer: the most well-known Christian
prayer of all.
The passage in Luke that contains the Our Father complements Matthew by making
certain elements more clear. It shows us that Jesus is specifically teaching the disciples
Module no. 1
how to pray, by saying particular words. The phrase, “when you pray, say . . .” is almost
like a formula for a regular practice of prayer. It’s also notable because here the prayerPage
is | 6
not in the context of the Sermon on the Mount, as in Matthew, but on another occasion
(yet more evidence of its repetitious nature):
Luke 11:1-4 He was praying in a certain place, and when he ceased, one of his disciples
said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples.” [2] And he said to
them, “When you pray, say: “Father, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. [3] Give
us each day our daily bread; [4] and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive every
one who is indebted to us; and lead us not into temptation.”
The intended repetition of the prayer is shown again by analogy in the same larger
passage, with regard to the proper practice of fasting, where Jesus says, “when you fast,
anoint your head and wash your face, that your fasting may not be seen by men but by
your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you” (Matt
6:17-18a). This is obviously intended to be a regular practice as well: not a one-time
thing.
Therefore, by direct analogy, if this practice regarding fasting is to be a regular habit, so

also the Lord’s prayer is a regular habit, and so it is repetitious, but it is not an
“empty phrase” or a “vain repetition.”
Protestants who argue that all formal prayer that repeats phrases (including, notably,
the Rosary) are “empty” or “vain” in fact manage to overlook the entire deeper meaning
and import of this biblical narrative, in context. Jesus is recommending and exhorting
His hearers to a genuine, humble piety of the heart, as opposed to an empty, shell-like,
merely external piety, intended to be seen by men in a spiritually prideful sense. It’s a
classic case study of taking something completely out of context and absolutizing it, in
gross violation of legitimate hermeneutical principles.
This theme of genuine vs. sham piety is seen throughout the first half of the chapter
(part of the Sermon on the Mount):
Matthew 6:1-6, 16 “Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by
them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. [2] “Thus,
when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the
synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they
have received their reward. [3] But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know
what your right hand is doing, [4] so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father
who sees in secret will reward you. [5] “And when you pray, you must not be like the
hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners,
that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. [6]
But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is
in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. . . . [16] And when you
Module no. 1
fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their
fasting may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. Page | 7
The same general idea occurs again in Mark and Luke:
Mark 12:38-40 And in his teaching he said, “Beware of the scribes, who like to go
about in long robes, and to have salutations in the market places [39] and the best seats
in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, [40] who devour widows’ houses
and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.”
Luke 20:46-47 “Beware of the scribes, who like to go about in long robes, and love
salutations in the market places and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of
honor at feasts, [47] who devour widows’ houses and for a pretense make long prayers.
They will receive the greater condemnation.”
It’s not that all long prayers are condemned, anymore than repetitious prayers are, but
that prayers made with a pretentious, prideful spirit (showing off in front of men;
making people think one is “super-pious”) are condemned.
Lastly, when Jesus states: “do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do,” note that
He is no longer talking about the Hebrew tradition of prayer (which quite obviously
included much repetition, such as in the Psalms and priestly chants and prayers). He’s
not even talking about the Pharisees, because they weren’t Gentiles. In other places (6:2,
5, and implied in context again in 6:16), He refers to practicing Jews, but now He
mentions the Gentiles. Remember, this is before the Church was opened up to the
Gentiles (after the day of Pentecost, after Jesus’ death) and spread beyond the Jews.
Therefore, Jesus was referring to people like the pagan Romans and Greeks, and other
non-Jews; people who had a different religion altogether. Thus, the KJV, NKJV, NEB ,
and REB versions use the word “heathen,” and other translations (e.g., Phillips, TEV,
Jerusalem, NIV) use the word “pagans” here.
It is not only a matter, then, of praying with “empty phrases” and “vain repetition” but
also of praying “as the Gentiles / pagans / heathen do”: in other words, of praying like
those who practice an ultimately false religion. That element and the aspect of interior
piety take the passage to a far deeper place than merely a discussion of repetition: let
alone all repetition, as if God is condemning that.
Jesus then illustrates that He Himself is not opposed to all repetition in prayer, by
the example of His own practice:
Matthew 26:39, 42, 44 And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, “My
Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou
wilt.” . . . [42] Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, “My Father, if this
Module no. 1
cannot pass unless I drink it, thy will be done.” . . . [44] So, leaving them again, he went
away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words. Page | 8
Mark 14:39 And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words.
The following passage suggests to me (though I wouldn’t make too much of it as an

exegetical argument) formal, liturgical (hence, repetitious) prayers, by the phraseology
“the prayers” rather than simply “prayer” (as in Acts 6:4) or “praying”:
Acts 2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the
breaking of bread and the prayers. (cf. Acts 3:1: “. . . going up to the temple at the hour
of prayer, the ninth hour,” which may be related).
Moreover, further repetition occurs in repeated intercession for the same person or
persons. For example:
Ephesians 1:16 I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers,
Colossians 1:9 And so, from the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you,
asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and
understanding,
Colossians 4:12 Ep’aphras, who is one of yourselves, a servant of Christ Jesus, greets

you, always remembering you earnestly in his prayers, . . .
1 Thessalonians 1:2 We give thanks to God always for you all, constantly mentioning
you in our prayers,
2 Thessalonians 1:11 To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you
worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power,
2 Timothy 1:3 I thank God whom I serve with a clear conscience, as did my
fathers, when I remember you constantly in my prayers.
Here are examples of relentlessly repeated prayer requests:
Luke 18:1-7 And he told them a parable, to the effect that they ought always to
pray and not lose heart. [2] He said, “In a certain city there was a judge who neither
feared God nor regarded man; [3] and there was a widow in that city who kept coming
to him and saying, `Vindicate me against my adversary.’ [4] For a while he refused; but
afterward he said to himself, `Though I neither fear God nor regard man, [5] yet
because this widow bothers me, I will vindicate her, or she will wear me out by her
continual coming.'” [6] And the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge says.
Module no. 1
[7] And will not God vindicate his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay
long over them? Page | 9
(cf. Lk 2:37: “She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and
prayer night and day”; also 1 Tim 5:5: “continues in supplications and prayers night and
day“)
1 Thessalonians 3:10 praying earnestly night and day that we may see you face to face
and supply what is lacking in your faith?
Activity 1.
Write a commentary about repetitive prayers of the Catholic Church. (Holy Rosary,
Lord’s Prayer, Apostle’s Creed, and the like)
Minimum of 1oo words.
Module no. 1
Page | 10
CHAPTER I

Opening Prayer:
INRODUCTION:
Broadly defined, a dogma is a truth pertaining to faith or morals that has been revealed
by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by Tradition, defined by the
Church, and which the faithful are bound to believe. The Church’s Magisterium—the
pope and the bishops in union with him—has been entrusted by the Holy Spirit to
preserve, protect, and proclaim God’s revelation in the world. There are four of these
dogmas: Mary’s Immaculate Conception; Mary’s title and role as “Mother of God”;
Mary’s Assumption into Heaven; and Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.
The teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is one of the longest defined dogmas of the
Church. It was taught by the earliest Church Fathers, including: Tertullian, St.
Athanasius, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine. And it was officially declared a dogma at
the Fifth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 553 A.D. That declaration called
Mary “ever-virgin.” A century later, a statement by Pope Martin I clarified that “ever-
virgin” meant Mary was a virgin before, during, and after Christ’s birth. Of those three
aspects of Mary’s perpetual virginity, the easiest part to see in Scripture is her virginal
conception of Christ. Both Matthew and Luke leave no room for doubt on that (Mt 1:18;
Module no. 1
Lk 1:34–35, 3:23). That virginal motherhood is the guarantor of both Jesus’ divinity and
Page | 11
Jesus’ humanity. It safeguards the truth that he was both fully God and fully man.
Less apparent is Mary’s virginity during and after Christ’s birth. Understanding the
reason for that first requires recognition that Mary’s virginity wasn’t just one attribute of
hers among many. It’s central to her identity. It’s who she is. Not just biologically, but
spiritually, interiorly. All her life, Mary possessed an integrity that every other human
person since Adam and Eve has lacked. Because of that integrity, her body perfectly
expressed her spirit. There was no tension between the two. Accordingly, since Mary’s
soul was entirely consecrated to God, so too was her body. Her physical virginity was a
perpetual sign of that consecration.
Mary’s virginity keeps the physical sign of an interior reality intact. Doing that took a
miracle, but no more of a miracle than it took for Jesus, after his resurrection, to enter
the room where His disciples awaited Him even though the door was locked (Jn 20:19).
That’s also one of the reasons why Mary and Joseph refrained from normal marital
relations. Her virginity was too central to her identity to do otherwise.
That centrality is foreshadowed in the two Old Testament “types” of Mary: The Virgin
Eve and the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark’s holiness stemmed from the presence of God
within it. That presence made it so sacred that anyone who touched it died instantly (2
Sam 6:6–7). Mary, like the Ark, had been set apart from everything else in creation. She
contained the presence of God within her, closed to everyone and everything else in this
respect.
B. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The question which gave occasion to it was whether the Mother of our Lord remained a
Virgin after His birth. Many of our brothers and sisters who are not catholic believe that
Mary lost her virginity after giving birth to our Lord Jesus Christ. It is because that it is
mentioned in the Gospels that Jesus has brethren. In Matt. 13:55 you can see that
James, Joses, Simon, and Judas are brothers of Jesus. But it was explained by the
Catholic Church that neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the
notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the
witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she
remained a lifelong virgin.
A man name Jerome refuted the claim that Mary lost her virginity by having other
children other than Jesus. He tried to prove that the sisters and brethren spoken of,
Module no. 1
were either children of Joseph by a former marriage, or first cousins, children of the
Page | 12
sister of the Virgin Mary. And Tim Staple, a pastor that converted into Catholicism,
pointed out that Lk.6:15-16 revealed that James and Joses, though elsewhere called
brothers of Jesus, were here shown to be the sons of Alphaeus (cf. Matt. 10:3, 27:56)
whose wife Mary was actually the blessed Virgin Mary’s sister, or perhaps her cousin (cf
Jn. 19:25) these brothers were actually Jesus’s cousins. The term “brother” is often used
to mean “cousin”.
The Biblical Evidence for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Mary “remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in
carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin” (CCC 510)
Once upon a time, almost no Christians denied that Mary the mother of Jesus was
perpetually a virgin: including Protestants. Of the early leaders of that movement,
virtually all fully accepted this doctrine: including Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger,
Turretin, and Cranmer. Moreover, most Protestant exegetes continued to believe it for
at least another 350 years or so.
But today, for various reasons, things are very different, so it's helpful to revisit the
biblical arguments, since the Bible is the authority all Christians revere in common. A
surprising number can be found.
1) Luke 2:41-51 describes Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to the temple at the age of
twelve, for the required observance of Passover. Everyone agrees that He was the first
child of Mary, so if there were up to five or more siblings, as some maintain (or even
one), why is there no hint of them at all in this account?
2) Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic have words for “cousin.” The New Testament was
written in Greek, which does have such a word (sungenis), but Jesus and His disciples
spoke Aramaic (a late version of Hebrew), and the Hebrew word ach is literally
translated as adelphos, the literal equivalent of the English “brother.” In the Bible, it has
a very wide range of meanings beyond “sibling”: just as “brother” does in English. Thus,
it is routinely used in the New Testament to describe cousins or kinsmen, etc.
3) Jesus Himself uses “brethren” (adelphos) in the non-sibling sense. In Matthew 23:8
(cf. 12:49-50), He calls, for example, the “crowds” and His “disciples” (23:1) “brethren.”
In other words, they are each other's“brothers”: the brotherhood of Christians.
4) In comparing Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, we find that James and
Joseph (mentioned in Mt 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus' “brothers”) are the sons
of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Mt 27:61; 28:1) is called Our Lady'sadelphein
Module no. 1
John 19:25. Assuming that there are not two women named “Mary” in one family, this
Page | 13
usage apparently means “cousin” or more distant relative. Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark
6:3 mention Simon, Jude and "sisters" along with James and Joseph, calling all
adelphoi. The most plausible interpretation of all this related data is a use of adelphos as
“cousins” (or possibly, step-brothers) rather than “siblings.” We know for sure, from the
above information, that James and Joseph were not Jesus' siblings.
It's not mere special pleading to argue in this fashion, nor an alleged “desperation” of
Catholics who supposedly “read into” the texts their prior belief in the dogma of
perpetual virginity. Plenty of Protestant exegesis and scholarship confirms these views:
especially in older commentaries. For example, the prominent 19th century
Commentary on the Whole Bible, by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, states, regarding
Matthew 13:55 (my italics added):
An exceedingly difficult question here arises - What were these “brethren” and “sisters”
to Jesus? Were they, First, His full brothers and sisters? or, Secondly, Were they His
step-brothers and step-sisters, children of Joseph by a former marriage? or, Thirdly,
Were they His cousins, according to a common way of speaking among the Jews
respecting persons of collateral descent? On this subject an immense deal has been
written, nor are opinions yet by any means agreed . . . In addition to other objections,
many of the best interpreters, . . . prefer the third opinion. . . Thus dubiously we prefer
to leave this vexed question, encompassed as it is with difficulties.
5) The Blessed Virgin Mary is committed to the care of the Apostle John by Jesus from
the Cross (John 19:26-27). Jesus certainly wouldn't have done this if He had brothers
(all of whom would have been younger than He was).
6) Matthew 1:24-25 Joseph . . . knew her not until she had borne a son . . .
This passage has been used as an argument that Mary did not remain a virgin after the
birth of Jesus, but the same Protestant commentary also states (my italics again):
The word “till” [until above] does not necessarily imply that they lived on a different
footing afterwards (as will be evident from the use of the same word in 1 Samuel 15:35; 2
Samuel 6:23; Matthew 12:20); nor does the word “first-born” decide the much-disputed
question, whether Mary had any children to Joseph after the birth of Christ; for, as
Lightfoot says, “The law, in speaking of the first-born, regarded not whether any were
born after or no, but only that none were born before.”
John Calvin used the same counter-argument in favor of Mary's perpetual virginity. In
fact, in his Harmony of the Gospels, commenting on Matthew 1:25, he thought the
Module no. 1
contention of further siblings based on this passage was so unfounded that he wrote,
Page | 14
“No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for
disputation.”
7) Jude is called the Lord's “brother” in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. If this is the same
Jude who wrote the epistle bearing that name (as many think), he calls himself “a
servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1). Now, suppose for a moment
that he was Jesus' blood brother. In that case, he refrains from referring to himself as
the Lord’s own sibling (while we are told that such a phraseology occurs several times in
the New Testament, referring to a sibling relationship) and chooses instead to identify
himself as James' brother.
This is far too strange and implausible to believe. Moreover, James also refrains from
calling himself Jesus’ brother, in his epistle (James 1:1: “servant of God and of the Lord
Jesus Christ”): even though St. Paul calls him “the Lord's brother” (Gal 1:19).
It's true that Scripture doesn’t come right out and explicitly state that Mary was a
perpetual virgin. But nothing in Scripture contradicts that notion, and -- to say the same
thing another way -- nothing in the perpetual virginity doctrine contradicts Scripture.
Activity 2.
Reflect about the perpetual virginity of Mary. Minimum of half of page.
Module no. 1
Page | 15
CHAPTER I
Opening Prayer:
INRODUCTION:
Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, in virtue of the
promise of Jesus to Peter, the pope when appealing to his highest authority is preserved
from the possibility of error on doctrine "initially given to the apostolic Church and
handed down in Scripture and tradition". This doctrine was defined dogmatically at the
First Vatican Council of 1869–1870 in the document Pastor aeternus, but had been
defended before that, existing already in medieval theology and being the majority
opinion at the time of the Counter-Reformation.
The infallible teachings of the Pope are part of the Church's magisterium, which also
consists of ecumenical councils and the "ordinary and universal magisterium". In
Module no. 1
Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the channels of the infallibility of the
Page | 16
Church.
The doctrine of infallibility relies on one of the cornerstones of Catholic dogma: that of
papal supremacy, and his authority as the ruling agent who decides what are accepted as
formal beliefs in the Roman Catholic Church. The use of this power is referred to as
speaking ex cathedra. The solemn declaration of papal infallibility by Vatican I took
place on 18 July 1870. Since that time, the only example of an ex cathedra decree took
place in 1950, when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as an article of faith.
Prior to the solemn definition of 1870, the only agreed upon infallible definition of a
pope apart from a council was that of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX in
Ineffabilis Deus of 1854. In both cases the pope checked with bishops worldwide that
this was the belief of the Church before proceeding to a formal definition
LESSON PROPER
C. THE INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY OF THE MAGISTERIUM

There are so many Christian religions in the world and each one claims that they
are the true church the church that is founded by Christ. But the question is, how that
was possible that their church was founded by Christ when in fact their church was
younger than the Roman Catholic Church? Meaning, the Roman Catholic Church is the
mother church of all Christian Churches. For example, Martin Luther was once a priest
of the Catholic Church but he was excommunicated because of his rejection of some
teaching and practices of the Roman Catholic Church and his refusal to reject all his
teachings and writings against the Roman Catholic Church. What happened next after
his excommunication was that all his writings and words were wildly spread in Germany
and those thing gave a remarkable impact to the people that made them all to decide to
follow the Lutherans teaching. (sola fide, sola sciptura, and sola gratia) in this time, the
Protestantism began and as a another church, another set of belief, another way of
worshiping God.
The protestant doesn’t believe the infallible authority of the magisterium. The
magisterium of the Catholic Church is the church's authority or office to give authentic
interpretation of the Word of God, "whether in its written form or in the form of
Tradition. And it is only the Pope can make the decision if the teachings or the
interpretation of the word of God is valid or not valid. The Pope cannot make an error to
whatever decision or teach that concerns about faith and morals because he is infallible.
That is why the protestant would say that it is not any pope or council that can give an
Module no. 1
authentic teaching about God’s words. Protestant believes that sola scriptura or
Page | 17
scripture alone is their infallible teacher. In 1 Jn. 2:27 says that we need not anyone to
teach us for His Spirt will teach us about everything. And what He teaches is true that’s
why we need to obey the Spirit’s teaching and remain in union with Christ. Another is in
Mt. 18:19-20 says that, “And I tell you more: whenever two of you on earth agree about
anything you pray for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or
three come together in my name, I am there with them.” In response to this argument
we just need to read the entire passage of Matthew 18 rather than just emphasizing
verses 19 and 20. In this text Jesus explains how to deal with Christian who falls into sin
and error. If he will not listen to an individual’s admonishment, two or more witnesses
should confront him,” so that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word maybe
established.” If he refuses to listen to them, they are to refer the issue to the church.
And, “if he refuses to listen even to the Church, treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax
collector” (Mt. 18:16-17). In other words, the church has the final say. In fact, it has the
authority given by Christ, to excommunicate someone for sin or heresy.
Immediately after this teaching on the final authority of the church to settle such
issues Jesus delivers another promise regarding the church’s authority: “Amen, I say to
you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loosed on
earth shall be loosed in heaven” (v. 18) thus, the church is infallible for how the church
could fulfill the Lord’s command to decide issues authoritatively if the church is not
infallible. And how could the protestant claim that the bible is the supreme authority
when the bible can’t interpret itself? Whose interpretation are we to go by? The counter
attack of the protestant to this question is might be the 1 Jn. 2:27 which says, that we
need not have any man to teach us, but the Holy Spirit will teach us. “Doesn’t this verse
imply that we don’t need a church to tell us what to believe and how to act?” To counter
this question is one needs to explain what is the verse really meant. “The Holy Spirit
speaks preeminently through the church, so that when the church teaches officially, it is
not mere human teaching but the Holy Spirit guiding the church.
Assuming that you are a protestant minister. Do you believe that your
interpretation of the scripture would be infallible? I guess you wouldn’t dare to answer
“yes” the fact that you are fallible and a sinful being. And the only infallible authority
you have is the bible sine you believe that scripture alone is your teacher. Now, if you
have no guarantee that your interpretations of the scripture are correct, then why should
I trust you? Do you think it is because of the inspiration of scripture that I should believe
in whatever you teach and preach?
It is true that the bible is inspired but there are many holy books claim to be
inspired: the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, the Hindu Vedas, just to mention three.
Catholics and Protestants alike have received the testimony of the Church that scripture
Module no. 1
is inspired. The church did not make the books of the bible inspired but it is the
Page | 18
trustworthy witness God uses to attest to scripture’s authority and inspiration.
Activity 3.
Now that you know that the Roman Catholic Church authority is given by Christ what
can you now say about the authority of the other Christians denominations?
ADDENDUM
The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one that is generally
misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other
“Bible Christians” often confuse the charism of papal “infallibility” with “impeccability.”
They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary
blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an
infallible definition is due.
Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility,
it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of
sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to
the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly
teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles
and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you
hears me” (Luke 10:16).
Vatican II’s Explanation

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual
bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim
Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world,
provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s
successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur
in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even
more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are
teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must
then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19;
John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his
Module no. 1
office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his
Page | 19
brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of
faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the
Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the
Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching;
rather, it is a doctrine that was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding
of infallibility that has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact,
the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17
(“Feed my sheep . . . ”), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not
fail”), and Matthew 16:18 (“You are Peter . . . ”).
Based on Christ’s Mandate

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and
promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13).
That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his
teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.
As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church
and the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s
infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in
the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question
this way, “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic
faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth
century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome
has spoken; the case is concluded” (Sermons 131, 10).
Some Clarifications
An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical
council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most
doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.
Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never
been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope
alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope
to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible
Module no. 1
pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching

Page | 20
authority) of the Church.
At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar
to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different
story with “Bible Christians.” For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because
their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.
Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection,
of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability.
There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example.
Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others.
This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to
solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to
unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not
infallible; only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.
Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common
misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special
grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is
not quite correct, either. What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and
formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know
what is true, nor does it “inspire” him to teach what is true.
Peter Not Infallible?

As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct
at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain
Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate
papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of
discipline, not with issues of faith or morals. Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s
actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct
teaching (Gal. 2:12–13).
Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—
they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under
protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with
this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general.
Module no. 1
Turning to history, critics of the Church cite certain “errors of the popes.” Their
Page | 21
argument is really reduced to three cases, those of Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and
Honorius, the three cases to which all opponents of papal infallibility turn, because they
are the only cases that do not collapse as soon as they are mentioned. There is no point
in giving the details here, but it is enough to note that none of the cases meet the
requirements outlined by the description of papal infallibility given at Vatican I (see
Pastor Aeternus 4).
Their “Favorite Case”

According to Fundamentalist commentators, their best case lies with Pope Honorius.
They say he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only
one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox
Christians hold.
But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he
simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, “To the best of
his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater
peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that
he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not
defining a doctrine.”
The rejection of papal infallibility by “Bible Christians” stems from their view of the
Church. They do not think Christ established a visible Church, which means they do not
believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope.
This is no place to give an elaborate demonstration of the establishment of a visible
Church. But it is simple enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles
setting up, after their Master’s instructions, a visible organization, and that every
Christian writer in the early centuries—in fact, nearly all Christians until the
Reformation—fully recognized that Christ set up an ongoing organization.
One example of this ancient belief comes to us from Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-
century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, “Wherever the bishop appears, let the
people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to
the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).
Module no. 1
If Christ did set up such an organization, he must have provided for its continuation, for
Page | 22
its easy identification (that is, it had to be visible so it could be found), and, since he
would be gone from earth, for some method by which it could preserve his teachings
intact.
All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops, and the
preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed through the gift of
infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly through its Christ-appointed leaders,
the bishops (as a whole) and the pope (as an individual).
It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this
charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ
promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected
from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to
be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.
Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t
“neglect” to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions
will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his
not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.
But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a
primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be
believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source
of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists.
Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b),
this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever
apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be
Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly
defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle
Paul’s statement that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own
spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects
you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials

presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827

permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
Module no. 1
Page | 23
Module no. 1

Module in Religious Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module in Religious Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

St.

Mary’s College of Catbalogan

MODULE IN RELIGIOUS STUDY

A. The Condemnation Against “Vain Repetitions”

A. The Condemnation against “Vain Repetitions”

Broadly, Roman Catholicism differs from other Christian churches and

Matthew 6:7 And in praying do not heap up empty phrases [KJV: “vain

But the real question is,

Therefore, by direct analogy, if this practice regarding fasting is to be a regular habit, so

The same general idea occurs again in Mark and Luke:

Mark 14:39 And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words.

The following passage suggests to me (though I wouldn’t make too much of it as an

Colossians 4:12 Ep’aphras, who is one of yourselves, a servant of Christ Jesus, greets

Here are examples of relentlessly repeated prayer requests:

LESSON 1: THE VARIOUS ATTACKS AGAINST CATHOLICISM

B. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary

The Biblical Evidence for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

LESSON 1: THE VARIOUS ATTACKS AGAINST CATHOLICISM

C. THE INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY OF THE MAGISTERIUM

Vatican II’s Explanation

Based on Christ’s Mandate

pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching

Peter Not Infallible?

Their “Favorite Case”

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827

You might also like