Rome Officially Adds Additional Catechesis Questions

For the More Perfect Understanding of the Catholic Faith

And also officially admits that this is nothing more than

pure satire, possibly even written by a Protestant — Nihil

Obstat: Not Granted)

By the Reverend David Straw I www.virtueonline.org I September 6, 2026

The following is purely a work of satire. It is not an official

Roman Catholic document, nor is it intended to add to the

official Catechism of the Catholic Church. These are not actual

additional catechesis questions issued by Rome, nor do they

represent any real magisterial teaching. Although Anglicans —

including John Henry Newman and Henry Edward Manning —

have at times genuinely contributed to the development of

Catholic doctrine, this is definitely not one of those instances. It

is offered in the hope that a few additional questions may assist

the faithful in appreciating the historical, theological, and

ecclesiastical complexities of the Catholic Faith.

A Pastoral Introduction?

In response to the continuing desire of the Catholic faithful for a

deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the Faith, the

appropriate ecclesiastical authorities have determined that the

existing catechetical resources would benefit from several

further questions and answers.

While the Church has always possessed the fullness of the Faith,

it has become increasingly apparent that the faithful may

occasionally require additional clarification concerning what the

Church teaches, when she began teaching it in its present form,

how precisely she defines it, and what exceptions may apply.

These additional questions are offered in that spirit.

As one distinguished ecclesiastical authority might put it:

“The purpose of these supplementary catechesis questions is to

clarify the boundaries of Catholic doctrine, deepen the

learnedness of the faithful, and assist the ordinary Catholic

in understanding more clearly those things which the

Church has always believed, particularly when the

historical record requires further explanation.”

As His Excellency Monsignor Bartolomeo Alessandro Maria

della Sacra Congregazione per la Diffusione della Fede e la

Retta Interpretazione dei Suoi Sviluppi Storici Antonio Vincenzo

Ignazio Bonaventura della Santissima Trinità has more recently

observed:

“This merely proves, once again, that the One True Church is

incapable of error — only of explanation.”

Accordingly, the following questions are presented.

Additional Catechesis Questions

I. On the Canon of Scripture

Q. By what majority was the Canon of Scripture defined?

A. An affirmative plurality.

Q. Did a majority of those eligible to vote at the Council of

Trent actually vote in favor?

A. No.

Q. Nevertheless, was the decree adopted?

A. It was.

Q. Was the decree thereafter received as an authoritative

definition of the Catholic Canon?

A. It was.

Q. Is the Canon therefore settled?

A. It is.

Q. Then are there further questions?

A. There are.

II. On Tradition and Development

Q. What is Sacred Tradition?

A. That which the Church has always believed.

Q. Are there doctrines whose precise formulation occurred

considerably later?

A. There are.

Q. Had the Church always defined them in precisely the same

terminology?

A. No.

Q. Had the Church always believed them?

A. Yes.

Q. Does the absence of an early, precise definition prove that a

doctrine is new?

A. It does not.

Q. Does the presence of a later, precise definition prove that

everybody understood it precisely that way from the beginning?

A. It does not.

Q. Could earlier Christians have expressed the matter

differently?

A. They could.

Q. Could some earlier Christians have understood the matter

differently?

A. They could.

Q. What is this process called?

A. Development.

Q. Is development a convenient explanation?

A. It is.

III. On John Henry Newman

Q. Who became one of the most influential formulators of the

modern Catholic theory of doctrinal development?

A. John Henry Newman.

Q. Was Newman in communion with Rome when he began

writing his Essay on the subject?

A. He was not.

Q. What was he then?

A. An Anglican priest, and a leader of the Oxford Movement.

Q. Did he complete the Essay before or after he entered the

Roman Catholic Church?

A. In the very course of his conversion.

Q. Did this Essay help persuade him to convert?

A. It did.

Q. Did Rome subsequently adopt this Anglican convert’s theory

as an important account of how doctrine develops?

A. She did.

Q. Is it therefore fair to say that one of Rome’s most influential

modern accounts of her own doctrinal development was first

worked out by an Anglican?

A. It is.

Q. Is this irony often noted?

A. Not often enough.

Q. If Protestant ministers helped reform the liturgy, and an

Anglican priest supplied Rome’s own theory of doctrinal

development, have Protestants influenced the modern Catholic

Church?

A. They have.

Q. Has that influence been considerable?

A. It has.

Q. Should this count as a significant Protestant contribution to

the cause of Christian unity?

A. One might think so.

Q. Are Protestants, and Anglicans in particular, regarded

accordingly?

A. Not especially.

Q. Is that fair?

A. Next question.

IV. On Papal Infallibility

Q. Does papal infallibility have limits?

A. It does.

Q. Is the Pope therefore infallible whenever he speaks?

A. He is not.

Q. Must he speak ex cathedra for papal infallibility to be

exercised in its strict sense?

A. He must.

Q. Can the Pope make an ex cathedra definition without

obtaining the consent of the Cardinals?

A. He can.

Q. Can he make such a definition without first obtaining the

consent of an Ecumenical Council?

A. He can.

Q. Can he make such a definition without taking a vote of all the

bishops of the Church?

A. He can.

Q. Can the Cardinals prevent an otherwise valid ex cathedra

definition merely by withholding their consent?

A. They cannot.

Q. Can an Ecumenical Council prevent it merely by refusing to

vote for it?

A. It cannot.

Q. Can the Pope nevertheless declare anything whatsoever to be

an infallible doctrine simply by saying so?

A. He cannot.

Q. Why not?

A. Because papal infallibility has limits.

Q. Are those limits important?

A. Very.

Q. Are they frequently explained?

A. They are.

Q. Are they frequently misunderstood?

A. They are.

V. On Pope Honorius

Q. Was a Pope named Honorius the First ever condemned as a

heretic?

A. He was.

Q. By whom was he condemned?

A. By the Third Council of Constantinople.

Q. Was that an Ecumenical Council?

A. It was.

Q. Did Rome eventually accept that council’s authority?

A. She did.

Q. Was Honorius condemned by name?

A. He was.

Q. Did subsequent Popes ratify that condemnation?

A. They did, for centuries.

Q. Was this a condemnation of something Honorius merely

permitted, or of something he himself taught?

A. Of something he himself taught.

Q. Does this trouble the doctrine of papal infallibility?

A. Next question.

Q. Was Honorius speaking ex cathedra when he taught it?

A. That is disputed.

Q. Is that distinction convenient?

A. It is.

Q. Is it therefore untrue?

A. It is not.

Q. Is there anything else to clarify?

A. There usually is.

VI. On Roman Primacy and Universal Jurisdiction

Q. Has the office of the Pope always been what it is now?

A. Next question.

Q. Of the five ancient patriarchal sees of Christendom, are all

presently in communion with Rome?

A. They are not.

Q. Which are?

A. Rome alone.

Q. Does this trouble you?

A. Next question.

Q. Does Rome therefore possess universal jurisdiction over the

entire Church?

A. Next question.

Q. If not all the ancient sees accepted Roman primacy, on what

grounds does Rome claim it now?

A. Development.

VII. On the Reform of the Liturgy

Q. Following the Second Vatican Council, was the Roman

Missal revised?

A. It was.

Q. Was a priest named Annibale Bugnini given chief

responsibility for that revision?

A. He was.

Q. Did Protestant ministers take part in the work of reforming

the Mass?

A. They did.

Q. Did Bugnini himself describe the reform as having important

ecumenical dimensions?

A. He did.

Q. Did the reformed liturgy come to resemble Protestant

worship in certain respects?

A. Many have thought so.

Q. Would Rome describe this as Protestant influence?

A. She would not.

Q. What would she call it?

A. Renewal.

Q. Is renewal another word for development?

A. It is beginning to sound like one.

VIII. On Clerical Celibacy

Q. Have all Popes been celibate?

A. Next question.

Q. Must priests in the Latin Church ordinarily be celibate?

A. They must.

Q. Are there married Catholic priests?

A. There are.

Q. Is clerical celibacy therefore a universal requirement of every

Catholic priest in every circumstance?

A. It is not.

Q. Has clerical celibacy always been universally practiced

throughout the history of the Catholic Church?

A. It has not.

Q. Is clerical celibacy therefore an ancient discipline?

A. It is.

Q. Is it an unchanging discipline?

A. Next question.

IX. On Thomas Cranmer

Q. Was Thomas Cranmer offered the opportunity to recant?

A. He was.

Q. Did Cranmer sign recantations?

A. He did.

Q. Did he make more than one recantation?

A. He did.

Q. Did he receive absolution after his recantations?

A. He did.

Q. Was he nevertheless executed?

A. He was.

Q. Did Cranmer subsequently repudiate those recantations

publicly?

A. He did.

Q. Was he burned at the stake?

A. He was.

Q. Did he famously declare that the hand which had signed his

recantation should suffer first?

A. It did.

X. On Martin Luther

Q. Did Martin Luther leave the priesthood so that he might

marry?

A. He did not.

Q. Did he subsequently marry?

A. He did.

Q. Did he marry a former nun?

A. He did.

Q. Is the commonly cited explanation more convenient?

A. It is.

Q. Is it therefore the more accurate explanation of the

Reformation?

A. It is not.

Q. Was Luther’s dispute with Rome concerned with

considerably more than marriage?

A. It was.

Q. Is the more complicated explanation less convenient?

A. It is.

XI. On Henry VIII

Q. Did Henry VIII desire an annulment of his marriage to

Catherine of Aragon?

A. He did.

Q. Did this dispute contribute to the English Reformation?

A. It did.

Q. Was Henry’s marital difficulty the entirety of the theological

dispute between England and Rome?

A. It was not.

Q. Did English theologians subsequently produce extensive

arguments concerning Scripture, tradition, justification, the

Sacraments, ecclesiastical authority, and the nature of the

Church?

A. They did.

Q. Is “Henry wanted a divorce” easier to explain?

A. It is.

Q. Is it therefore the complete explanation?

A. It is not.

Q. Would the English Reformation have happened without

Henry’s desire for a divorce?

A. Possibly not.

Q. Does that settle the theological question?

A. It does not.

XII. On Councils

Q. Are Ecumenical Councils important to the Catholic Church?

A. They are.

Q. Have councils ever disagreed with Popes?

A. Next question.

Q. Have Popes ever disagreed with councils?

A. Next question.

Q. Has the Church’s conciliar history always been

straightforward?

A. It has been historically rich.

Q. Is “historically rich” another way of saying “complicated”?

A. It is an acceptable expression.

XIII. On Marian Dogmas

Q. Was the Immaculate Conception solemnly defined as dogma

in 1854?

A. It was.

Q. Was the Assumption of Mary solemnly defined as dogma in

1950?

A. It was.

Q. Had these doctrines been solemnly defined as dogmas from

the beginning of the Church?

A. They had not.

Q. Had these doctrines nevertheless been taught or believed in

some form before their solemn definitions?

A. They had.

Q. Is this an example of doctrinal development?

A. It is.

Q. Was the doctrine clearer after the definition?

A. It was.

Q. Was the doctrine therefore new?

A. It was not.

Q. Is there anything else to clarify?

A. There usually is.

XIV. On Purgatory

Q. Is Purgatory the same thing as Hell?

A. It is not.

Q. Is it a state of purification for those who die in God’s grace?

A. It is.

Q. Is the word “Purgatory” found in Scripture?

A. Next question.

Q. Is the concept of postmortem purification found in Christian

tradition?

A. It is.

Q. Was the doctrine developed and defined with increasing

precision?

A. It was.

Q. Is this development?

A. It is.

XV. On Indulgences

Q. Can an indulgence forgive the guilt of sin?

A. It cannot.

Q. Can an indulgence remit temporal punishment due to sins

already forgiven?

A. It can.

Q. Were indulgences abused?

A. They were.

Q. Did abuses of indulgences contribute to the Protestant

Reformation?

A. They did.

Q. Did the Church reform the practice?

A. She did.

Q. Was the existence of abuse proof that the doctrine itself was

false?

A. It was not.

Q. Is the distinction important?

A. It is.

XVI. On Catholic Answers

Q. Do Catholic theologians have answers to everything?

A. They do.

Q. Do those answers sometimes require additional distinctions,

qualifications, and explanations?

A. They do.

Q. Can the explanation itself sometimes become part of the

problem?

A. It can.

Q. Is this necessarily evidence that the answer is wrong?

A. It is not.

Q. Is it nevertheless worth asking whether the explanation has

become more complicated than the question?

A. It is.

Q. Does the existence of an answer necessarily mean that the

original objection has been satisfactorily answered?

A. Next question.

XVII. On the Average Catholic

Q. Must the average Catholic understand every theological

distinction contained in this catechism?

A. No.

Q. Is the average Catholic nevertheless expected to accept the

teachings of the Church?

A. Yes.

Q. Even when the historical explanation is complicated?

A. Yes.

Q. Even when the theological qualifications are numerous?

A. Yes.

Q. Even when the doctrine was defined centuries after the

Apostles?

A. Yes.

Q. Must he also trust the theologians who explain why the

objections do not succeed?

A. He should.

Q. Is this convenient?

A. It is.

Q. Is the Catholic Faith therefore difficult?

A. Not at all.

Q. Is explaining it difficult?

A. Occasionally.

Q. Why?

A. Development.

XVIII. Final Examination

Q. Has the Catholic Church always possessed the fullness of the

Faith?

A. She has.

Q. Has she always expressed every doctrine in precisely the

same language?

A. She has not.

Q. Has she always defined every doctrine with precisely the

same degree of precision?

A. She has not.

Q. Has the Church ever changed her doctrine?

A. She has developed her doctrine.

Q. Is development the same as changing doctrine?

A. It is not.

Q. Is the distinction important?

A. Very.

Q. Is historical evidence important?

A. It is.

Q. Is historical evidence always conclusive?

A. Not always.

Q. Is theological interpretation therefore necessary?

A. It is.

Q. Is ecclesiastical authority necessary?

A. It is.

Q. Is the Pope infallible?

A. Under certain conditions.

Q. Are the conditions important?

A. Extremely.

Q. Have all Popes been celibate?

A. We refer you to Section VIII.

Q. Is everything the Church teaches ancient?

A. Yes.

Q. Is everything the Church teaches ancient in its present

formulation?

A. No. But it is always meant to.

Q. Is everything the Church teaches therefore new?

A. Certainly not.

Q. What is the explanation?

A. Development.

Q. Should an Anglican clergyman with an afternoon and a

laptop be able to poke this much fun at Rome so easily?

A. He should not.

Q. Does Rome have answers to difficult questions?

A. It does.

Q. Are those answers sometimes highly sophisticated?

A. They are.

Q. Do they sometimes involve distinctions the original question

did not appear to require?

A. They do.

Q. Does the existence of an elaborate answer prove that the

doctrine is false?

A. It does not.

Q. Does it prove that the doctrine is true?

A. It does not.

Q. Are Catholics Christian?

A. They are.

Q. Are all Christian expressions made up of only the sinful?

A. They are.

Q. Given how much Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans have

shaped one another, should the work of ecumenical dialogue be

further along than it is?

A. It should.

Q. Should we pray that Christ’s Church should be one?

A. We should.

Q. Has this supplementary catechism made the Catholic Faith

easier to understand?

A. We believe so.

Q. Has it answered every question?

A. It has not.

Q. May further questions be submitted?

A. They may.

Q. And if a question proves particularly inconvenient?

A. Next question.