Radio Replies Vol 3 - Catholic Apologetics Online

He did not say that. He did not mention the clergy. The text you have in mind is Jn. VIII., 44. There He was speaking to a particular group of Jews who rejected His claim to divinity, and who took up stones to kill Him because of that claim. It is strange that Judge Rutherford who misuses that text against the clergy should himself deny absolutely Christ's claim to be God-thus identifying himself with the very ones whom Christ declared to be of their father the devil, who stood not in the truth, for the truth was not in him.

There is no need for servants of the Lord who do not happen to be specially consecrated to God to do so. But those servants of the Lord who happen to be priests should wear special dress. God Himself legislated in the Old Law that His priests should wear a special dress. And human wisdom also realizes that those in official position, as in the army, or in the navy, should wear special uniforms. Thus, those from whom people desire official directions can easily be found.

Our Lord's words were simply a strong way of saying, in the Hebrew style, that no earthly father must come before God, the one supreme Father of all, in one's allegiance. So Christ said, "He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me." His words were not intended to forbid a boy to call a parent ''father," and if you may call the man on earth to whom you owe your earthly life, and education, and constant care, "father," so you may call "father" that man on earth to whom you owe your spiritual life. So St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "You have not many fathers. Yet by the Gospel I have begotten you in Christ Jesus." I Cor. IV., 15. He knew quite well that in thus calling himself their spiritual father in Christ he was not violating any commandment of Christ.

In a purely spiritual sense a priest does all for the life of grace in a soul that ordinary parents do for the natural life of the children God gives them. It is the priest who gives spiritual life to souls at the baptismal font. He educates those brought forth to life in Christ by their baptismal rebirth; he teaches, warns, corrects, and advises his spiritual children, and nourishes them with the bread of life in the Sacraments. When souls go out of this world to meet God, it is the priest who is at their death-beds, soothing their last hours, allaying their fears, and consoling them as no others could do. Having no family, the priest belongs to every family; and all in his parish, men, women, and children, love him and venerate him, and look up to him as their spiritual guide and friend, summing up everything in that term of supreme respect and reverence-"Father." Catholics rightly, therefore, call the priest "father," not to the exclusion of their Father in heaven, but as a manifestation on earth of the supreme Fatherhood of God in the spiritual order, even as an earthly parent is a similar manifestation of that same Fatherhood in the natural order.

The priesthood established by Jesus Christ has nothing to do with "priestcraft." Nor does superstition enter into the high regard Catholics have for the priestly vocation. The priesthood of Christ, communicated to men, is undoubtedly the highest dignity in the world. And in a way it is everything in the Church. For it is the essential manifestation of the Church. The Church is but a "collective priest," the spiritual and mystical body of Christ, the One High Priest. Through the Church, Christ offers Himself to us; and He makes use of a specially ordained priesthood in order to do so. From this point of view, the priesthood is the most important function in the Church. Bishops are for this priesthood. They are to ordain priests, and control the exercise of priestly powers. And those powers are chiefly for the Eucharist. Priests are ordained to consecrate the Eucharist, and to prepare the faithful for the reception of the Eucharist by instruction and by forgiving them their sins.

That is true. But notice that the respect is independently of a priest's character, and in spite of his faults. If he has faults, no one is expected to reverence those faults. And even charity, which overlooks those faults, does not demand that we deny them if they do exist. Of course, a priest is obliged to make his personal character correspond with the sacred character of his office, and deserve personally the respect which his position secures for him. If he fails to do this, he will answer to God for his infidelity. But others are never dispensed from the duty of reverence for those who are called to the office of priesthood. Such respect is included in the reverence one has for his religion.

It is really a question of justice, which inspires us to render to others what is due to them. Now we know that people differ, and always will differ, in education, ability, virtue, authority, dignity, and in many other ways. And it is but just to recognize these differences in practice. If religion is a just recognition of God's excellence and majesty, so in a lesser way we should respect the office and dignity of such men as exercise religious authority given by God. Thus, we all admit that a child should treat his parents with respect. And the faults of those parents do not dispense the child from that duty. If a mother has faults, the child is not obliged to call those faults virtues; but he will at least say, "Anyway, she is my mother, I respect her for the office God gave her in relation to me, and I prefer not to discuss her with others." But there are other bonds between people besides parentage. For example, justice demands that we render to a king or president the respect due to him as holding authority from God. And the respect we owe to him is extended to a governor or an ambassador appointed by him. The governor may have his personal faults. But they do not dispense us from honoring him in virtue of his office. In the same way, a priest is a representative of Jesus Christ, fulfilling duties entrusted to him by our Savior, and acting in His name. Our very respect for Christ is extended to those He has deigned to choose as His ambassadors to men. And one's respect will be proportionate to one's own faith in Christ.

The slanderer of anybody is a most despicable creature. But if the slandering of anybody is evil, it is worse when one slanders a priest. The text to which you refer is from Ps. 104, where God says, "Touch ye not my anointed." He insists on respect for His religion being extended to His appointed ministers of religion. There are some people who try to excuse their irreligious conduct by saying that they are not anti-Christian, but merely anticlerical. But, whatever theoretical value that distinction may have, it has practically none in practice. Anticlericalism inevitably leads to a decrease or even a complete loss of the Christian Faith in the end. If a priest is guilty of disedifying conduct, he will be blamed on all sides because of his very identity with religion. It will be argued that he cannot but bring disgrace on the Church and the cause he represents. But this must apply both ways. To slander a priest is also to bring contempt on the Church and on the cause of Christ. And that is treachery on the part of any professing Christian.

They are three. Firstly, to allow one's respect for Christ to extend to a priest by reason of his office. Secondly, to think no evil, to avoid rash judgments, and to overlook in a spirit of charity such obvious human faults and frailties as a priest may exhibit, dismissing them completely from consideration and conversation. Thirdly, to continue most faithfully in one's own religious duties, never dreaming that neglect of duty in a priest could possibly justify neglect of duty by others.

The fact that Catholics are disappointed when individual priests fail to set an edifying example shows that they at least have right ideas as to what a priest ought to be. A priest does not need to be holy for the validity of his ministrations. In him it is the priesthood of Christ which is at work, and Christ is holy. At the same time it would be wrong for one called to dispense grace and spiritual gifts to others in the name of Christ to lack grace and spirituality himself. And if the salt lose its savor, at the possibility of which Christ so sadly hinted, the only remedy is the reform and greater sanctification of the clergy, and an increased spirit of faith in the laity. The priest is in a privileged position as regards salvation by his intimate contact with religion and holy things. But he is in a perilous position also. His responsibilities are much greater than those of others, and his judgment will be much more exacting than that of others. His priesthood will not save him of itself. He has to work out his own salvation, and his fate will depend upon the use he makes of his gifts, and his fulfillment of the duties of his exalted state. To whom much has been given, of him much will be required by God.

Those who belong to the Church are members of Christ's body. But the Church is definitely an organization. Christ called His Church a kingdom, and a kingdom supposes organized authority, not anarchy.

Because the Catholic Church is not a Protestant Church. The Protestant idea of the Church is radically opposed to the Catholic idea. By their very departure from the Catholic Church, Protestants were forced to deny the constitutional and divine authority vested in the Pope and the bishops. Whilst they said that God is related to us through Christ, they repudiated the idea that Christ is related to us through the Church. Consequently, for them the Church lost its significance. They felt free to form Churches for themselves, insofar as they thought such associations helpful. Different men, therefore, formed different types of Churches. Hence the diversity. But all these Protestant Churches were what men made them, and had constitutions which men had given them. Their constitutions are always dependent upon men, and are revisable by men. But the case is very different with the Catholic Church.

Nor do Catholics. The Catholic Church is a living organism, and no element is passive in a living organism. Jesus came to cast fire upon the earth, and the laity has its part to do in the enkindling of that fire. But the laity's activities are not extinguished by submission to a hierarchy; they are stimulated. Catholics are not governed without their cooperation, and the Church relies upon their active good will. The recent appeal of the Pope for "Catholic Action" is precisely an appeal that the laity should banish all passivity, and do that work which lies within their province. The whole body benefits by the proper functioning of every unit. But the best government is that which unites the participation of all lesser activities with higher functions, controlling and centralizing everything in the harmony of one directing principle. This is accomplished in the Catholic Church, and Christ has given her the best possible constitution. In their very workings, the constitutions of Protestant Churches betray their purely human origin.

Protestantism does not acknowledge a sacrament of Holy Orders in the Catholic sense of the word. It repudiates anything savoring of sacerdotalism or of a priesthood distinct by its very nature from the condition of the laity. Some Protestant ministers are so insistent upon this that on principle they refuse to wear a dress distinguishing them from the layman. And many of them feel little incongruity in changing from a clerical to a secular career. On the other hand, the Catholic priest receives the very priesthood of Christ indelibly stamped upon his soul by the sacrament of Holy Orders. He is no longer a layman after his ordination, and knows that he can never be a layman again. He is forever consecrated and raised to a sacred dignity far above all earthly levels. Even did he return to a secular career, he would ever be conscious that he was still a priest. And knowing that the priesthood of Christ was communicated to him that he might offer sacrifice to God for the sins of men, and that he might dispense to men sacramental graces, he would know that a return to a secular career would be an insult to Christ, a guilty neglect of the grace of his ordination, and treachery to the souls of men for whom he was ordained.

Catholics fully agree that Jesus is our Great High Priest. So even did you become a Catholic you would not have to change your views on that point. Where you do go wrong, however, is in thinking that, because Jesus is our High Priest, no human being could be empowered by Him to exercise the office of priesthood on His behalf. That Jesus is our High Priest does not forbid Him to exercise His priesthood through human instruments of His own choosing, who will thus be secondary priests. Any honor given to priests would then be honor given to Him; for apart from Christ from whom they derive their priesthood they would be nothing.

Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church, and the Holy Spirit is the soul of the Catholic Church. But Christ, the one invisible Head of the Church, is visibly represented in the visible Christian assembly by the Pope. As successor of St. Peter, the Pope is simply the "Agent General" of Christ.

The only restriction on Christ was His inability to contradict Himself, or to commit sin of any kind. He Himself said, "All power is given to me in heaven and on earth." And He said to the Apostles, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound also in heaven."

Christ made many new laws. I cannot spare the time to enumerate them all. But take this one example. When He said at the Last Supper to the Apostles, "Do this in commemoration of Me, and as often as you do it, you will show the death of the Lord until He come," He gave them a new law not to be found, as previously binding, in the Old Law. So, too, when He commanded men to be baptized by water and the Holy Spirit. When Christ gave the warning about the "commandments of men" He was addressing the Scribes and Pharisees. But their unauthorized impositions under the Old Law did not prevent Him from authorizing His own Apostles to legislate in His name under the New Law, promising to safeguard them from error by the gift of the Holy Ghost. It is that same Holy Spirit who preserves the Church from any essential errors opposed to Christian principles in her official teaching concerning faith and morals.

Part of what He had taught them was that they had the power to legislate in His name. And that constitutional power has been handed on in the Church.

Dean Inge is wrong. His appeal to the distinction between 'Churchianity' and Christianity may have weight with Protestants who protest against the Catholic Church, and whose religion has become so self-centered and individualistic that they have little respect for their own Churches. But the distinction will avail nothing with those bitterly opposed to Christianity. They do not object to the corporate view which identifies the Church with Christ. They object to the idea of a supernatural revelation at all. They will not entertain the notion that God Himself ever prescribed a definite religion for man. And Dean Inge could attack eccleciasticism till his dying day without converting a single one of its enemies to Christianity. It is true that bitter opponents of Christianity rejoice when professing Christians attack the clergy. They gladly repeat such utterances. But their joy is not in any hope that pure and undefiled Christianity will emerge from the painful criticism; their hope is that anticlericalism will put one more nail in the coffin of Christianity.

I deny that, in the Catholic Church at least, the priesthood and the bishops, as an official class, will ever want to make their authority a personal matter, to be increased to their own advantage. I say thatI deny that of them as a class. ButI agree with Dean Inge to this extent: It is not likely that, in a society composed of human beings, there will ever exist a class of officials in which some of the officials will not abuse their office, and seek to increase their power from motives of personal pride and ambition. That may be true of leaders in the Catholic Church, as of every other society, secular or religious in this world. Not for a moment would I deny that there have been Catholic bishops and priests who have forsaken the spirit of Christ, neglected their duties, exceeded their rights, been guilty of intolerable tyranny, and sickened those who have known them of the religion they claimed to represent. But they are the exception. Christ predicted that they would exist, and warned us not to let such failures and disappointments due to human frailty and sin shake our faith in the Church as such. The Church is to be judged by the mass of those who have lived in accordance with her requirements; not by the comparative few whose conduct is their own, and possibly guilty of a violation of what the Church declares they should be and should do.

In the first place, if any history depicts the Catholic Church as a monstrous abuse, that history itself is a monstrous abuse. One may agree with historians bringing out abuses of which members of the Church have undoubtedly been guilty. But to transfer the guilt from recalcitrant members or officials to the Church they disgraced is monstrous. Still more monstrous is Dean Inge's bland assertion that the traditions of the Great Church have made the Word of God of no effect and that people who learn to despise the Church will be then ready to go back to the fountain-head is against all experience. An ever-growing loss of interest in any Christianity at all is the outstanding characteristic of those whose forefathers abandoned the Catholic Church at the time of the Protestant Reformation. As for judging modern problems by the broad principles of the New Testament, those who make such statements seldom get beyond vague generalizations. They do not tell us what they think those principles to be, lest in defining them they should seem to be narrow. The main thing, apparently, is to keep on talking about the broad principles of the New Testament, but at all costs to keep them so broad that they cease to be principles.

Where the Catholic Church is concerned it is sheer nonsense to say that ecclesiastical tradition has completely upset the moral standards of the Gospels. Apart from the extravagance of the statement, the Gospels themselves declare it to be impossible. As for disobedience to the hierarchy being a graver sin than sins against the theological virtue of charity or love of God, the Catholic Church expressly teaches that sins against the theological virtues are worse than sins against the cardinal virtues of justice, which includes obedience and truthfulness, and of temperance, which includes humility and purity. Apparently, too, the Dean wants to convey the idea that, in the Catholic Church, sins against love, truthfulness, humility or purity, do not matter so long as one is obedient to the hierarchy. That is a calumny. It may be argued that the Dean does not want to convey such an idea, and that he admits that they are regarded as sins. But he took care to destroy that impression by declaring that ecclesiastical tradition has completely upset the moral standards of the Gospels. One wonders why he remains an ecclesiastic even in the Church of England!

That could happen. But I deny that such is true of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, a superficial knowledge of earlier religious systems, and a fascination for the discovery of remote parallelisms in Christianity, can blind one to the historical facts concerning the independent origin of the Christian religion, and the immense differences which far outweigh what are for the most part imagined similarities. And still further, one can be blind to the laws of logic, and fall into the fallacy of thinking that similarities are of themselves sufficient proof of derivation.

All can really be reduced to three. Firstly, magisterial power, or the authority to teach the truth in His name. Thus He said, "Go, teach all nations." Secondly, sanctifying powers for the forgiving of sin and the conferring of graces necessary for salvation and virtue. Thus He said, "Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them." Thirdly, legislative power, or the right to make laws for the disciplinary needs of the Church. Thus He said, "Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Yes. For Christ said, "Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." Matt. 28, 20. By the consummation of the world is meant, not the death of the Apostles, but the end of time, and of the human race on earth. And the Church must remain with the constitution, powers, and authority given it by Christ, or it would cease to be the Church as Christ established it, and no longer, therefore, His Church. The Catholic Church, just as Christ intended it and founded it, is imperishable. It is not subject to any essential changes.

Those verses are as follows: "These signs shall follow them that believe: In My name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover."

You are asking what the Gospels themselves do not require; for you are reading more into the words of Christ than they contain. Christ said, "These signs shall follow." He did not say that they would follow always, and in every single age, and be in the power of every believer in Him, or even of every priest. Christ's prediction was verified, for such signs did follow the preaching of the Gospel. If you read the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Paul you will find that such things certainly did occur. Again, although such miraculous manifestations are not so abundant today as in the early Church, when they were more necessary to secure its rapid and solid extension, they have not entirely ceased. They have continued intermittently through the ages, as we know from the lives of the Saints. But, if you have any faith in the predictions of Christ, instead of urging an exaggerated extension of a particular prediction beyond any limits intended by our Lord, why not face His prediction that the Church He established will continue in the world all days till the end of time, the very gates of hell failing to prevail against it? That Church is still in this world, and it is the Catholic Church.

There is no particular reason why they should be empowered to do so. Our Lord did not predict that every single believer in any given age would be endowed with the ability to do all the remarkable things He enumerated. In the various ages, and more particularly in Apostolic times, some believers did some of them; others did others. And since those signs did follow those who believed in Christ, His prophecy was fulfilled. Your difficulty arises from our having read too hastily and superficially an isolated text, accepting conclusions far wider than the premises afforded by it could possibly justify. If the answer to a sum in arithmetic is to be correct, it must not contain more than the preceding figures warrant. And it is a great test of sound reasoning to go back to the propositions from which you began, and make sure that you have got their right sense, and that you have not read more into them than they really say.

The promises of miraculous powers were not for the disciples only. I merely maintain that they were not for all believers always. Christ promised the gift of miracles, not to anyone who would believe in Him at all, but to the community of the faithful, to be exercised by some of them individually according to the will of God and the interests of the Church. The cases quoted in the passage from St. Mark are merely possible examples, chosen from amongst others. So St. Paul describes in 1 Cor. XII.. 28-31, the various gifts, saying that God gave to some the gift of miracles-that in the Church were graces of healings, helps, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. But he adds, "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? ... Be zealous for the better gifts." And he goes on to show that charity and personal virtue are the things that really matter. The disposition of extraordinary gifts can be left to God.

There can be, in the Catholic sense, the one on earth being but secondary, and Vicar of Christ, the Supreme Head of the Church. Thus, a plenipotentiary ambassador has the power of the king. It is not a power different from that of the king. In fact, it is the king's power exercised through the ambassador. So the Pope is head of the Church on earth insofar as to him is delegated the power of Christ by Christ Himself. The Pope teaches and governs in the name of Christ. And he must be strictly faithful to the doctrines taught by Christ, interpreting them, defining them, defending them, and settling disputes concerning them. He is there for that, and such an authority is the secret of the success of the Catholic Church. And, of course, it is the provision made for His Church by the wisdom of Christ.

He does not do so. A person is said to arrogate to himself a title when he assumes it without any right to possess it. But, as the rightful head of the Catholic Church in this world, the Pope lawfully succeeds to an office whose occupant is rightfully regarded as God's Vicar on earth.

I am afraid you do not understand what the word "vicar" means. If you imagine that it supposes authority even over God, I must ask you to dismiss that idea at once. A vicar is one who has authority as the delegate of another. Anyone who exercises authority in the name of another can rightly be termed that others vicar. Thus, in writing of the king, Carlyle says, "The authority of the king is that of law, or of right, not that of wrong. The king, therefore, should use the authority of law or right as being the vicar and servant of God on earth." So speaks Carlyle, and quite correctly. But if he who holds supreme authority in the State for purposes of temporal administration may be termed the Vicar of God, surely the term is still more justified when we speak of the supreme head of the Church, to whom the care of our spiritual welfare has been entrusted.

Christ conferred upon St. Peter a very holy office, and appointed him as head of the household of the faith constituted by the great family of all the spiritual children of God. By doing this, Christ appointed him as the "holy father" of the whole Christian family on earth; and we Catholics as true children of the family rightly grant to him and to the Pope as his successor, the title of "Holy Father."

That is true. The word "Pope" simply means "Father," and the bishops from the beginning were regarded as entrusted in a particular way with the paternal care of their respective flocks. It was not until the fourth century that the word "Pope" began to be a distinctive title of the Bishop of Rome.

Chiefly by the title of their Bishopric. Rome, as the See of St. Peter, was acknowledged to be the supreme source of authority in the Church; and it was enough to speak of the Bishop of Rome for all to know that the supreme head of the Church on earth was intended. Yet, besides the title of Bishop of Rome, even in the earliest times when all bishops were called Popes, other distinctive titles were given to those to whom the title of Pope is now restricted. Thus, the Bishop of Rome was called the "Supreme Pontiff," or the "Roman Pontiff," or again the "Bishop of Bishops.'" But in general, it is enough to say that the supremacy of the Pope was annexed to the Bishopric inherited from St. Peter, and the very mention of Rome was enough to indicate supreme authority in the Church. "Rome has spoken; the case is finished" is an axiom which sums up the attitude of the early Christians.

In the second century, St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, gives the list of the Popes until his day. "The Blessed Apostles," he wrote, "transmitted the office of the episcopate to Linus. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, to Clement is allotted the episcopacy." So he continues, giving the names of the Popes down to Eleutherius, "Who now," he says, "in the twelfth place, holds the inheritance of the episcopate from the Apostles." How could St. Irenaeus, in the second century, enumerate the names of twelve Popes, if there were no Popes before the fourth century?

The Primacy will always be attached to the episcopal See of Rome. The diocese of Rome, therefore, will never be destroyed nor suppressed. Despite any possible political changes, there will always be some faithful Christians in the diocese of Rome, and the Pope will be their bishop. The true "Eternal Rome," to use a popular expression, is not political Rome, but the Rome of St. Peter and of his successors; in other words, perpetuity belongs to ecclesiastical Rome, whatever political changes the centuries may bring.

Christ Himself gave St. Peter the power of transmitting his privileges and authority as head of the Church by declaring that Church to be perpetual. As a building is supported by its foundation, so the whole Church will ever rest upon the constitutional office and authority to be transmitted by Peter. If the Church is to remain all days till the end of the world protected by Christ, it must remain just as He established it. No one could alter the essential constitution He gave it, or it would no longer be the same society. As the Church is perpetual, so the Primacy is perpetual, and, therefore, to be transmitted by Peter to his successors. Those who deny this must face the formidable consequence that the Church for nearly two thousand years has been heretical, leading the overwhelming majority of Christians through all the ages into error, so that the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against the Church Christ established and guaranteed. They must concede that the Church has no single visible head on earth; that unity in faith and worship is not necessary; and that division amongst the Churches with all their variations of discipline and indiscipline is quite in accordance with the mind of Christ. And that is indeed a reduction to the absurd.

The text, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church," has, of course, been violently disputed by those who desired to reject Catholicism. But the heterodox interpretations of these people, however respectable in their own eyes and in those of their followers, remained, nevertheless, heterodox. Error does not cease to be error because it becomes widespread and popular. Protestant scholars are becoming rapidly ashamed of the absurd interpretations adopted in order to escape the Catholic sense. So we find the Protestant Dr. Plummer insisting that the word rock must refer to Peter, and not to Christ Himself, nor to Peter's faith, nor to Peter's confession of faith. Dr. Briggs, a Presbyterian scholar, writes, "All attempts to explain the rock in any other way than as referring to Peter have ignominiously failed." The German Protestant scholar Kuinoel wrote, "Many interpreters wrongly said that the 'rock' referred to Christ Himself or to the confession of Peter. They would not have taken refuge in these distorted interpretations if the Popes had not used the words to vindicate their own authority." Loisy, the French Modernist, said, "Protestant interpretations are based on polemical interests. But, if one does accept the Gospels in an historical sense, their interpretations are only subtle distinctions doing violence to the text." Heterodox interpretations, therefore, are still heterodox; and they are growing less and less respectable.

I agree. But the Catholic Church does not try to function on a couple of verses of Scripture; and she does not flagrantly distort Matthew XVI., 18. and XVIII., 17. even when those particular verses happen to be quoted. If you hear them quoted fairly often, it is because those who write to me, and profess to believe in the Bible, seem to forget that they exist.

Being infallible means that the Catholic Church is unable, even if she would, to teach or legislate officially, in matters of faith or morals, in any way opposed to the revelation given by God to mankind. The infallibility of the Church does not give her the right to depart from the principles of Christ. It is a restriction, taking away that possibility. There is no guarantee that a noninfallible Church will not go astray.

That is sufficiently refuted by the fact that it is Judge Rutherford who supplies such information.

He is a symbol of the evil spirit of revolt against God throughout the ages. St. John personifies by his expression the forces of evil struggling against the work of Christ. Ever there is an antichrist. It may be this Emperor or that; or some group of irreligious men, or a collection of groups. Whether, when the worlds history approaches its climax, the antagonist is to be represented by one man, or by one system of government, or even by a dominant system of thought cannot be defined. But that matters little. Certainly the generalized visions of St. John do not justify us in insisting that the "man" referred to must be a definite human or diabolical personality. And still more certainly, the expression in no way refers to the Pope.

It was at least God's permissive will. It was quite against God's positive will that the few unworthy Popes should have lived in a disedifying way. But we should quarrel, not with the fact that they were Popes, but with the fact that they did not live up to their obligations, and set a good personal example to the faithful.

Catholics certainly must and do believe that no Pope, whatever his personal character, has ever defined an erroneous doctrine to be true. But the gift of infallibility does not extend to matters of practical administration. And Popes have undoubtedly been guilty of imprudence in such matters. The Church, however, being indefectible in virtue of Christ's promise to be with her all days till the end of the world, has survived all such mistakes in management and policy on the part of the Popes.

There is no authority in the Church to command what is evil. If any authority did so, Catholics are obliged to disobey such commands. If, for example, the Pope sent me a special command to murder some special enemy of the Church, I would absolutely refuse to obey. And if the Pope charged me with disobedience, I would reply, "I owe you no obedience when you command what is clearly sinful." But there is not the least likelihood of any Pope commanding anyone to do what is sinful.

Yes. In the year 96, Pope Clement of Rome, wrote to the Corinthians. His letter was official, written in his capacity as successor of St. Peter, and it gave not only advice but definite commands. After his instructions he wrote, "If you obey what we have written by the Holy Spirit, you will be our joy and consolation. But if some do not obey what God has said by us, let them know that they will be involved in no small sin and danger." Harnack, the German Protestant scholar, admitted that this letter of Clement proves that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was an accepted fact even in the first century. Again, we have the testimony of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch from 69-107 A. D. He writes that the Church at Rome "presides over the whole assembly united in charity." And he asks for prayers for the Church in Syria confided to him subject to Christ and the supreme authority of Rome. This testimony of St. Ignatius has particular value, for St. Peter had been Bishop of Antioch. If St. Peter had remained and died at Antioch, the Bishop of Antioch would have obtained the supremacy. But St. Ignatius expressly rejects the idea that he has authority over the Christians at Rome, and admits that the Bishop of Rome is the principal and presiding bishop. Thirdly, St. Irenaeus, 130-202 A. D., Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, wrote as follows of the Roman See: "On account of its supremacy it is necessary that every Church in which is the tradition of the Apostles should be in harmony or unity with this Church." Fourthly, St. Cyprian, 210-258 A. D., an African bishop, writing of certain heretics, says, "They even dare to invade the See of Peter and the principal Church whence the unity of the priesthood has its source." Again he writes, "We exhort all to acknowledge and hold that Rome is the mother and root-source of the Catholic Church."

It is true that the early Councils were convened by the Emperors, but never with any idea that they could grant any ecclesiastical jurisdiction or authority to the members of those Councils or to their decisions. Whilst the Emperor might demand that the bishops assemble, the Pope alone could give the character of an Oecumenical Council to the gathering, either by sending Legates, as at the Nicene Council; or by delegating authority to one of the bishops to preside, as at Ephesus; or by confirming the Decrees, as with the Second Council of Constantinople. In no case had the Decrees oecumenical value without the ratification of the Pope. The reason for the prior action of the Emperor in convening the Councils should be clear. When the same people are subjects of both civil and ecclesiastical authority, civil disturbance can affect their spiritual welfare, and religious disturbance can affect their civil welfare. Heresies in those times greatly disturbed social peace; and the Emperors wanted questions of faith and order in the Church rectified for the good of the Empire. But they knew that questions of faith as such were subject to the authority of the Pope. They had no say in deciding such matters.

All were aware of it. They could not be unaware of the testimonies of Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Cyprian, and many others. Hosius, who presided at the Council of Nicea, was the Legate of Pope Sylvester. Yet Pope Sylvester's predecessor, Pope Julius I., had written to the Eusebian bishops, "The ecclesiastical canon forbids any decrees to be sanctioned without the judgment of the Roman Bishop." That canon was certainly known to all the bishops assembled at Nicea.

The Council did not do so. You have been misled by a wrong interpretation of the 6th Canon of the Nicene Council. That Canon did not allot junior patriarchal rights to the Bishop of Rome. It vindicated the patriarchal rights of Alexandria against the usurper, Meletius of Lycopolis. The Bishop of Alexandria complained to the Council of this usurpation. The Council then vindicated the patriarchal rights of the great Sees of Alexandria and Antioch in their own spheres, even as all admitted the patriarchal rights of Rome. The authoritative interpretation of this 6th Canon of Nicea can be found in the 16th transaction of the Council of Chalcedon. Paschasius was asked to quote the 6h Canon of Nicea. He did so as follows: "The Roman Church has always had the primary. Let Egypt however hold that the Bishop of Alexandria has power over all members there, because such is the custom with the Roman Bishop. So, in Antioch, and in the other provinces, let the Churches of the greater cities have the primacy." All present at Chalcedon agreed to the safeguarding of the patriarchal rights of Alexandria and Antioch in relation to their suffragan bishops, but added: "We declare that the primacy, and chief honor, according to the Canons, he preserved to the Archbishop of ancient Rome."

What you here think adverse to the papal claims is really strong evidence for them. Take the history of the whole affair. From the earliest times, the Christians in Asia Minor used to celebrate Easter at the same time as the Jewish Passover, the 14th day of the Jewish month Nisan, on whatever day of the week it might fall. Elsewhere, and especially at Rome, Easter was celebrated always on a Sunday, as amongst us today. A controversy arose about this divergence of custom, and Pope Victor instructed the bishops to meet in order to settle the question. Lest Jewish ideas should invade the Church in Asia Minor, nearly all the bishops declared that the Roman custom should be observed everywhere. But the bishops of Asia Minor refused this, and the Pope condemned them, and excommunicated them. St. Irenaeus wrote to the Pope begging him not to enforce the censure for the sake of peace, and Pope Victor yielded. However, the Jewish custom was gradually abandoned, and before long the Roman custom of Easter observance was accepted in Asia Minor also.

I have explained that. No conclusion detrimental to papal jurisdiction can be drawn from the incident. Dr. B. J. Kidd, the Protestant scholar, says: "At no point in its history is this pre-eminence so evident as under Pope Victor, when from Gaul to Osrhoene on the Euphrates his invitation for the summoning of Councils to effect a settlement of the Paschal Controversy was everywhere accepted." And he quotes Duchesne's statement that this matter "shows how evident in those ancient times was the oecumenical authority of the Roman Church." And certainly no bishop other than the Bishop of Rome claimed such a right to intervene; nor would any other have been so heeded. Though some of the bishops refused to obey, and at the request of Irenaeus the Pope did not enforce the decree of excommunication, it does not follow that they denied his authority. As a matter of fact, the letter of Irenaeus shows that his authority was admitted, for Irenaeus pleaded that so many Christians should not be cut off from the Church for observing a long-standing custom. That is an admission that if the Pope did enforce the excommunication, the effect would be their exclusion from the Church. Harnack, the German Protestant historian, saw that. "How could Victor threaten such an edict of excommunication," he writes, "unless it was commonly admitted that it belonged to the Roman Church to define the conditions of unity in those things that pertained to the faith."

Let us take the facts, and then discuss their significance. In the year 253 A. D., two bishops in Spain named Basilides and Martialis denied their faith during a persecution, and went over to paganism. Neighboring bishops thereupon consecrated two other bishops, Sabinus and Felix, to take their places. The two apostate bishops later repented and wanted to take over their previous dioceses from Sabinus and Felix. Meeting with opposition, they went to Rome, gave a false account of affairs to Pope Stephen, and implored him to use his supreme authority to restore them to their bishoprics. They were very plausible, and deceived the Pope, who ordered their reinstatement. The distressed local Catholics then appealed for advice to Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage in Africa. Cyprian told them not to reinstate Basilides and Martialis, but to keep Sabinus and Felix, declaring that the Pope's decision was based on the wrong information supplied by the two unworthy renegades. But in all this there is no indication that either the Spanish Catholics or Cyprian of Carthage rejected the Pope's supremacy. The mere fact that Basilides and Martialis had recourse to the Holy See shows the primacy of Rome as an accepted fact. Cyprian himself in his writings on the subject strongly maintained all the Catholic principles of the Roman Primacy. In practice, during the stress of controversies, persecutions, and schisms, he did not always observe his own principles, and allowance can easily be made for mistakes in administration.

The incident affords no real difficulty. Cyprian, without denying the supreme authority of the Pope, seems to have ignored it in a particular difficulty, giving his reasons for doing so. Probably he thought he did what was for the best in the circumstances; but even had he been moved by some traces of pride or prejudice, which are latent even in the best of men, no argument against papal claims could be drawn from his conduct. In the year 257, Cyprian died a martyr for the faith, and is a canonized Saint in the Catholic Church. Writing in the fourth century, St. Augustine speaks of Cyprian's many mistakes, and says, "Either Cyprian did not say all that his enemies declare him to have said; or else he later corrected his views in the light of truth; or else the immense charity which filled his heart covered such blemishes in his life. In any case, he expiated all by his sufferings and death for Christ."

That case is often quoted where the right of appeal to the Pope against the disciplinary decisions of other bishops is concerned. About the year 417 A. D., Apiarius, a priest in Africa, was deposed and excommunicated by his own bishop.Apiarius appealed to the Pope, who took up his case, and reversed the decision of the African bishop, ordering Apiarius to be reinstated. After the death of Pope Zosimus, the case was again put to Pope Boniface, his successor. For five years, letters were exchanged between Africa and Rome concerning the principles involved, and Pope Boniface died without concluding the discussion. He was succeeded by Pope Celestine I., who settled the case by admitting that Apiarius was justly condemned by his own bishop, and should be deposed; but he insisted that, by virtue of their primacy, the Popes retained the right to hear and judge appeals from Africa, or anywhere else in the world.

It is not a question of my interpretation. It is a question of their objective historical significance. There is certainly not one word in them that can validly be urged against the Roman Primacy. The African bishops complained to Pope Boniface of the high-handed behavior of the Legate Faustinus, though without disputing in any way the fact of his authority. They also asked the Pope to verify certain Canons which had been quoted by his predecessor, Zosimus. It is to be noted that St. Augustine was a member of the committee of African bishops who wrote to Pope Boniface. Now St. Augustine was absolutely convinced of the primacy of the Pope, and would never have sanctioned letters which could be interpreted as opposed to that primacy. For example, writing against the Donatist heretics, St. Augustine said that the Bishop of Carthage had no need to worry about enemies so long as he knew that he was in communion with the Roman Church, in which the primacy of the Apostolic Chair had always existed, and from which the Gospel had come to Africa. In Ep. 209, he acknowledges that appeal may be made from his own episcopal decisions to Rome. And in sermon 131 he declares that Councils derive their authority from the approbation of the Supreme Pontiff. "For that reason," he writes, "the two Councils sent their transactions to the Apostolic See, and the Decrees duly came back. The cause is finished." From these words of St. Augustine the axiom arose, "Rome has spoken; the cause is finished."

In vindicating the right of appeals to Rome from Africa against local decisions there, Pope Zosimus had quoted two Canons which in all good faith he attributed to the Council of Nicea instead of to the Council of Sardica. The African bishops could not find them amongst the Nicene Canons, and as Zosimus died just at that time, they wrote to Boniface asking him to verify the quotation. Pope Boniface made inquiries, and found that Zosimus had mistakenly quoted the Sardican Canons as Nicene. The Council of Sardica (now Sofia, in Bulgaria) had met in 343, and had restated most clearly the law that there is always the right of appeal to the Pope "out of reverence for the Blessed Apostle Peter." But the Council of Sardica, whilst a lawful provincial Synod of Eastern bishops, was not an Oecumenical Council as was that of Nicea. But this merely technical point makes no difference whatever to the substance of the claim of the Popes to the primacy, and its continuous and general admission.

Of course. There is no point in searching history for isolated incidents in which the exercise of this primacy provoked opposition. Many, at various times, did not perceive fully the nature of that primacy, even though admitting it. Many did not know clearly how far it extended. Many, for personal reasons, resisted it, whilst still professing to be Catholics. Others lost the faith altogether and denied it. But the primacy was always there. I myself am not surprised by the number of cases in which the authority of the Pope was discussed, and its practical applications disputed. I marvel that there were not more. Any solicitor could tell you that there is a vast difference between a law and its application. Lawyers themselves will dispute as to the sense and amplitude of various civil laws. Test cases are brought to determine their interpretation. The wisest legal men will argue sincerely and strongly for opposing views. And out of such disputes the correct application emerges. In the same way the fact of the primacy of the Pope has ever stood, whilst disputes and discussions have but enabled us to state its implications with precision.

The section which suits your purpose is as follows: "Always following the rules of the holy Fathers, and knowing the Canon of the 150 most God-beloved bishops which has just been read, we also define and vote the same things concerning the primacy of the Most Holy Church of Constantinople, the New Rome. And indeed, the Fathers wisely gave the primacy to the See of Elder Rome because that city was the ruler; and the 150 most God-beloved bishops, moved by the same purpose, appointed a like primacy to the most Holy See of New Rome, rightly judging that the city honored because of her rule and her Senate, should enjoy a like primacy to that of the Elder Imperial Rome, and should be powerful in Church affairs, just as she is, and should be, the second after her." Such is the famous 28th Canon of Chalcedon. It must be noted that, whilst this Canon admits the primacy of Rome, it was dictated by the ambition of Constantinople to supplant the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch; and it wrongly states the origin of and the reasons for Rome's primacy.

Yes. Pope Leo the Great had himself convoked the Council of Chalcedon in 451. But when the Council met, Attila and the Huns were ravaging Italy, and many Western bishops could not attend. However, Pope Leo sent Paschasius, a Sicilian bishop, to preside in his name, with four other bishops to assist him. There were 630 Eastern bishops, the 5 Papal Legates, and 2 African bishops present. The Eastern bishops were anxious to exalt the See of Constantinople, not to the level of Rome, but above all other Churches. At the 15th Session, on Oct. 31st, the Papal Legates being absent, the Eastern bishops formulated their 28th Canon. But when they wrote to Pope Leo formally asking him to confirm their Decrees, the Pope confirmed the doctrinal decisions, but refused the Canons drawn up in the absence of the Papal Legates.

The Greek bishops gave no privileges. They acknowledged the primacy of Rome, and sought privileges for Constantinople to render the Patriarch of that city next in dignity after the Pope, and above the Sees of Alexandria and Antioch. They wrote to Pope Leo that they only wanted Constantinople to be "second," and added, "We beg you then to honor our decisions so that we may add the consent of the head of the Church." Pope Leo refused, telling them that they were confusing civil and divine things; and as a result the Canon was never inserted into any Code of Canon Law, either Eastern or Western, till the Greeks revised it some 400 years later at the time of the Schism of Photius and the commencement of the Greek Orthodox Church.

Yes. At that very Council of Chalcedon, when Pope Leo's dogmatic letter to Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, was read, all the bishops cried out, "That is the faith of the Fathers; that is the faith of the Apostles. Peter has spoken by Leo." And the appeal of the Eastern bishops themselves to the Pope as the head of the Church in order to secure the ratification of their 28th Canon, leaves no doubt as to their convictions concerning the Roman Primacy. In his book on "Church Unity," Dr. C. A. Briggs, a Presbyterian professor of theology, writes as follows: "We have to admit that the Christian Church from the earliest times recognized the primacy of the Roman Bishop, and that all other great Sees at times recognized the supreme jurisdiction of Rome in matters of doctrine, government, and discipline. It can easily be shown that the assumptions of the Bishops of Rome were often resented; their intrusions into the rights of other Patriarchates, provinces, and dioceses, were often resisted; their decisions were often refused; but when the whole case has been carefully examined and all the evidences sifted, the statement of Irenaeus stands firm." Irenaeus stated that "it is a matter of necessity for every Church to agree with the great, ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, on account of its pre-eminent authority."

In so protesting Gregory exercised his universal jurisdiction as Bishop of Bishops, not hesitating to condemn John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople.

He could not have been, since he exercised it. In many of his letters, also, he insists that the Bishop of Rome holds the place of Peter, that he is the head of the "Faith," and "of all the Churches." And he declares that all the bishops are subject to the Apostolic See. To understand the sense in which Pope Gregory condemned the expression "universal Bishop," you must understand the sense in which John the Faster intended it. It has always been Catholic teaching that the bishops are not mere agents of the Pope, but true successors of the Apostles. The supreme authority of Peter is perpetuated in the Popes; but the power and authority of the other Apostles is perpetuated in the other bishops in the true sense of the word. The Pope is not the "only" Bishop; and, although his power is supreme, his is not the "only" power. But John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, wanted to be bishop even of the dioceses of subordinate bishops, reducing them to mere agents, and making himself the universal or only real bishop. Pope Gregory condemned this intention, and wrote to John the Faster telling him that he had no right to claim to be universal bishop or "sole" bishop in his Patriarchate.

From the national point of view we are not subject to the Pope. From the spiritual point of view the word "foreign" is without meaning. All Catholics are equally members of the one great family of the children of God.

The authority of the Word of God does not enter into this matter. Protestants themselves would restrict the authority of the Bible to religious matters, even did they still accept it at all. Multitudes of them no longer accept it as having any real authority, and where they do, they read into it whatever they want it to mean. It is the Catholic Church today which stands for the authority of the Bible against rationalists and unbelievers. The statement that Catholics do not accept the laws of the land as supreme in their own sphere is an inexcusable calumny. Their very religion insists upon obedience to the law of the land in which they happen to dwell. It forbids them to do the will of a "foreign potentate" in opposition to the laws of their own country. And the Pope, as their supreme Bishop and leader in religious matters, never tires of urging his subjects wherever they may be to fulfill the duties of good citizenship.

That does not follow. In no way whatever can the Catholic Church be called partly a political State. If it were, then I, as a Catholic priest, would owe political allegiance to my country, and also a political allegiance to the Catholic Church. ButI acknowledge only one political allegiance-that to my country, Australia. Surely as a Catholic priest I ought to know what claims the Catholic religion makes upon me. I in no way acknowledge the Catholic Church as being in part a political State. The Pope is the spiritual head of the Catholic Church, andI acknowledge spiritual allegiance to him as to my supreme Bishop. He happens also to be temporal ruler of the territory known as Vatican City, in order to be independent of Italian civil authority. ButI am not a citizen dwelling in that territory, and have no political affiliations with it.

If the political interests of Vatican City ever really menaced the political interests of our Commonwealth, Catholics would be obliged in conscience to defend our country against Papal aggression. If the Pope sent two Cardinals and an altar boy in a rowing boat to annex Australia as a further temporal possession of the Holy See, it would be the duty of Catholics in Australia to enlist at once in the Army, Navy, and Air-force, and to concentrate on the task of repelling the invader even at the cost of their own lives.

That is absurd. If the Catholic Church in this country is an extra-national institution functioning in Australia, how would he rank his own Church? It is a religious institution; and not being a national institution, since Australia professes no national religion, it, too, must be classed as an extra-national institution.

That is not true. On her own principles the Catholic Church is obliged to inculcate in this country an Australian conception of citizenship of the loftiest character, even as she teaches her children fidelity to their conscience and religion. As a professor of theology, in a recent lecture to our own students preparing for the priesthood, I spoke as follows; and I leave it to my listeners to judge for themselves as to whether my words could be branded as propaganda for Italian ideals. These were my words: "Love of country is an integral part of human nature. Patriotism awakens deep feelings within us, and it stands for love of the place, of the actual soil, the scenery, the history of the land of our origin. Now divine grace perfects nature. There is not a single natural virtue which our Lord is not prepared to consecrate and render divine and supernatural. Our loyalty to country is caught up and blended through Jesus Christ with our loyalty to God. So the Catholic Church has ever respected national characteristics. She unites people in the same faith and worship without in the least asking them to renounce their national differences. We are not only allowed to love our country, we are obliged before God to do so. It would be a sin not to do so. But we must ever remember that love of our own country does not warrant our blaming other people for loving theirs. They, too, have a duty of patriotism. And we must rejoice to see Frenchmen loving France; Irishmen loving Ireland; Americans loving America; Englishmen loving England; Germans loving Germany. If I were working in Japan, I would teach Japanese children that it was their duty to love Japan, even as Australian children must be taught to love Australia."

The spiritual control to which Catholics are subject does not vary with national ups and downs, nor does it ever interfere with genuine national duties. In times of political crisis, it would not conflict in any way with genuine obligations of loyalty to the country, whether directly or indirectly. It would urge the fulfillment of those duties. But, of course, that does not mean that Catholics, any more than other citizens, are obliged to agree with what any would-be fanatical patriot chooses to declare to be the demands of loyalty. There are many people who think that what they advocate is the only true form of loyalty to their country. But others have the right to differ with them. With the genuine obligations of loyalty Catholicism can never conflict.

The Catholic Church certainly claims to be infallible; but she cannot be accused of self-righteousness when she declares that the rightness of her doctrines is due, not to herself, but to the fact that they have been revealed by Almighty God. Nor can she be accused of egotism when she explains that she is not free to compromise God's rights by admitting that human thoughts contradicting His teachings are equally correct. You yourself may not agree that the Catholic Church has such certainty that her teachings are revealed by God; but, granted that the Catholic Church believes it, she cannot be accused of adopting a self-righteous and egotistical attitude.

We do not make that claim. People can know many eternal truths quite independently of the Catholic Church. It is not necessary to be a Catholic, for example, to know that there is a God, or that there is a moral law obliging us to do what is right and avoid what is wrong. What we do maintain is that the Catholic Church has a monopoly of divine authority and certainty in teaching the eternal truths in their fullness as revealed by God. As you do not admit that any other body in this world possesses such a divine teaching authority, you will not resent the denial of the Catholic Church that any other possesses it. The only thing that you could resent would be the fact that the Catholic Church claims it. All I can suggest is that you study the grounds on which she bases that claim.

Since we deny vehemently that he is God, you cannot say that we make him God. But, of course, you mean that our doctrine seems impossible to you save on the hypothesis that the Pope is accepted as God. But that is not necessary. A violin giving out beautiful music is not a musician. You may say that the violin doesn't think the music, but that the Pope thinks the dogmas. Yet insofar as the Pope thinks, he is not infallible, and we have not got to believe his thought but his official declaration of the traditional teaching of Christ. Popes have committed their thoughts to writing, yet their books have much less authority in the Church than the works of a simple monk like St. Thomas Aquinas. It is not the Pope's thoughts, but the Pope's office which counts. To him in his official capacity as successor of St. Peter, our Lord's words apply, "I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not; and do thou confirm thy brethren." God can certainly preserve the Pope from making a wrong definition of doctrine, and He has promised to do so.

I will not admit anything of the kind. He is not a superman. The personal powers of the Pope do not enter into the matter. Christ has prayed for him. Christ preserves him from mistakes when, in his official capacity, he defines a doctrine for the universal Church. That is enough. Before a definition, the Pope has no greater personal certainty than any other theologian. After a definition, the Pope is as bound to believe it as any other Catholic. And he believes it as a thing above him, of which he has been the humble instrument.

Upon the will of Christ who established the Catholic Church and declared that she would be infallible as the guardian of the Faith.

The New Testament itself does not sanction that idea. St. Paul wrote to Timothy: "I charge thee before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead . . . preach the word. Be instant in season, out of season; reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine, for there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine; but according to their desires they will heap up to themselves teachers, and will turn away their hearing from the truth." 2 Tim. IV., 1-4. And again he wrote to Titus that a bishop must embrace "that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine, and to convince the gainsayers. For there are many disobedient who must be reproved, who subvert whole houses, teaching things they ought not. Wherefore rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in faith." Tit. I., 9-13. St. Paul knew that God had entrusted His religion to the guardianship of the Catholic Church which he calls the "pillar and ground of truth." I Tim. III., 15.

You seem to suppose, quite wrongly, that the infallibility of the Church depends ultimately upon human prudence. It does not. It depends ultimately upon the assistance of the Holy Ghost. It is to be noted that we say "assistance," and not "inspiration." The Holy Spirit does not necessarily inspire the Pope in such matters. Before a pronouncement is made, the matter is thoroughly discussed, theologians studying the whole question deeply in the light of Scripture, Apostolic tradition, the writings of the Fathers, and doctrinal analogies. If they decide that the proposed definition is in conformity with the revelation given by Christ, they so inform the Pope. He personally then weighs the question, pondering over it and praying for light. So far no definition has been made. Now what if, after all care has been taken, the proposed doctrine is false? Then, in virtue of the gift of infallibility, the Pope would be prevented from defining the doctrine by the Holy Spirit. How? By some special illumination of mind, or by some external miraculous sign, if necessary; or, if despite these things, the Pope were to determine to define the error, he would drop dead before he would be allowed to use his supreme authority to impose an heretical definition upon the whole Church. Whatever means might be used by God to prevent the Pope from defining error, he would certainly not be permitted to issue an erroneous definition.

In discussions prior to a Papal definition, if the minority were right, the majority would be wrong; and if a majority were right, the minority would be wrong. But there could be no infallible knowledge as to which group was right and which wrong, unless the Pope decided to define the issue. Should he do so, we would know infallibly that the group which had previously maintained the defined doctrine was right-whether it was the majority or the minority. We must keep in mind that discussions prior to an infallible definition do not contribute to the infallibility of that decision. Infallibility is due to the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Infallibility consists in certainty as regards the defined teachings of the Church, not in the impeccability of her officials. At the same time, if the whole hierarchy were to fall into moral corruption, one could possibly challenge the doctrine of Christ's protection of the Church on the score that one of her essential notes is holiness even in the lives of her members in general. But no stage of the history of the Catholic Church could justify the grotesque charge that the whole of the Catholic hierarchy was utterly corrupt.

St. Jerome was definitely not infallible. The original writers of Sacred Scripture were infallible, not subsequent translators or transcribers. St. Jerome's translation derives its real value from the fact that the Catholic Church has approved it; but even that approval is disciplinary rather than doctrinal. The Church does not say that no error ever occurred in St. Jerome's Version. But your difficulty arises from your erroneous notion as to the source of the infallibility of the Church. It is not derived from any human sources. If it were, that would be the end of infallibility, for merely human sources are necessarily fallible. If the Pope is asked to define infallibly the sense of some teaching of Scripture, theologians and Scripture scholars are appointed to study the matter in question. They study both text and context in the Vulgate of St. Jerome, compare it with other Versions and Manuscripts, search out the unanimous teaching of the Fathers if such unanimity is to be had, watch carefully the analogy of Catholic dogma, and present their conclusions to the Pope. The Pope may decide not to define the question, and the conclusion of scholars will then remain a probable or perhaps a certain conclusion of theologians without its becoming an infallible decision binding as a matter of strict faith. But if the Pope does give a decision ex cathedra as head of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit will safeguard him from defining any error. The definition then derives its value, not from the previous researches of theologians, nor from any personal thought bestowed upon the subject by the Pope himself, but from the protection and assistance of the Holy Ghost. From all this you can see that natural efforts at the translation of Scripture, whether by St. Jerome or anybody else, are not the foundation for the infallibility of the Catholic Church.

It is not in the least strange that purely natural forces should be discovered and made known to man as a result of human study rather than by the infallible Church. For the Catholic Church does not exist for the purpose of making known the natural secrets of the universe. She exists to safeguard and teach the supernatural revelation of man's eternal and supernatural destiny made known by God through the Prophets and His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ. You may think that the teaching of science should have been included in the scope of the mission of the Church. But our own speculations must give way before facts. And the fact is that Christ commissioned His Church to teach all nations all things whatsoever He had taught in the name of His Father.

It is worthy of his attention. But so far as natural development is concerned, God has left that to man himself. He does not make civilization, but wills that man should. However, He has not willed to reveal in advance the natural knowledge which can and should be the fruit of man's own initiative and the progressive exercise of his natural powers. The Church encourages men in their efforts at material and cultural progress; but her specific duty is to see that they do not neglect their spiritual welfare, nor the claims of God upon them. She must keep reiterating from age to age what God has said of Himself and of man's supreme destiny beyond the confines of this life. She must warn men of what they are in constant danger of forgetting-that they must serve God and save their souls, rather than allow themselves to be hypnotized by the transitory things of this life.

Of themselves they have no moral influence either for good or for evil. Such influence is due to the moral goodness or to the wickedness of the men who make use of them; and it is the duty of the Church to induce men to be morally good. To equip the Church for this work the religion of Christ was entrusted to her keeping.

No. All through the ages the Popes have been infallible. In 1870, the fact that he is infallible was defined as an article of faith, whilst a more precise decision was given concerning the matters concerning which his infallibility could be exercized and under what conditions.

Implicitly the infallibility of the Pope was admitted from the very beginning, for it was a necessary accompaniment of the Primacy over the whole Church against which Christ promised that the forces of error and evil would never prevail. All the declarations of the Fathers from the earliest times insisting that the Roman Church was the standard, especially in matters of faith, to which all Christians must conform, contain the principles and formulas summed up in the term infallibility. I do not give you a long list of quotations from Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, and the other Fathers; nor of various early documents issued by the Popes themselves. All I do say is that, as men got clearer and clearer notions of the teaching authority of the whole Church and of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, so they secured clearer notions of the infallibility of the Pope. In 433 A. D., we find Pope Sixtus III. declaring that all know that to assent to his decision is to assent to St. Peter who lives in his successors, and whose faith fails not. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 A. D., on receiving the dogmatic letters of Pope Leo the Great, said, "Peter has spoken by Leo." In the year 1270, 600 years before the definition of the doctrine by the Vatican Council, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote as follows: "Renewed statements of doctrine are necessary to avoid new errors. Therefore, he has authority to issue definitions of faith who has authority to determine what is of faith, and to be held by all who profess the faith. But this belongs to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, to whom matters more difficult and of more serious moment are referred. Therefore, our Lord said to Peter, whom He constituted Supreme Pontiff: "I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not." In 1870, the Vatican Council officially defined this infallibility of the Pope, thus making explicit what had been contained implicitly in Christian revelation from the beginning.

Before the definition of infallibility in 1870, the Popes did not know that they were infallible with the same full certainty of faith as that possessed by later Popes. But they were infallible in fact. The gift of papal infallibility was essential to the Church, not the definition of the gift. You wonder why it was defined only in 1870. But definitions are not given unnecessarily. If no discussion arises on a given point, and no one disputes it, there is no need of a definition. But in the seventeenth century the question of the Pope's doctrinal authority came more and more to the front, until in 1870, the Vatican Council was asked to settle the question once and for all. The time had come for the Church to know herself fully on this point, so she looked herself in the face, and defined this particular aspect of her teaching authority. If you ask why such a definition only after nearly 2,000 years,I ask why is a man fully developed only after some thirty years? The vitality of the Church supposes growth ever retaining stability of type. And remember that the Catholic Church is very young yet. A thousand years are as a day to her; and she will last till the end of the world.

The Church must ever be taking new stock of herself, even to the extent of discovering new things about herself concerning which she was not so clear before. But notice that this acquiring of new knowledge concerning herself does not imply a denial of anything already known.

That question cannot be called an alternative rendering of your previous question. For the Church can take new stock of herself without repudiating former estimates. Treating this, therefore, as a separate question, I reply definitely that the definition of infallibility was not revisional in its effects. The Church defined in 1870 that the Pope is infallible when he solemnly decides matters of faith or moral teaching, speaking in virtue of his supreme office and intending to declare an article of faith binding upon all the faithful throughout the world. That definition did away with no previous definition to the contrary. If some individual Catholics thought, prior to 1870, that the Pope was not infallible under these conditions, then they, of course, had to revise their opinions after 1870. But their opinions prior to 1870 did not reflect the official teaching of the Church.

No. That is evident from the fact that from the earliest ages the Church has defined the truth against heretics, all Catholics acknowledging the definitions given by the various Councils once the Pope had authorized them ex Cathedra in his official capacity as head of the Church.

Infallibility belongs to the teaching Church, and, therefore, to all Catholic bishops throughout the world, taken as a collective episcopate. The Catholic bishops, of whom the Pope is one, of course, have infallibility in their collective unity. But, as the Pope is the supreme bishop in the Church, this unity is procured by and derived from him. A council of bishops not confirmed by the Pope would lack infallibility. The Pope without a general Council of bishops enjoys infallibility; a Council of bishops without the Pope does not. In other words, the body of bishops, when in union with the Pope, has a confirmed infallibility. But the Pope alone has the infallibility which confirms. This is the logical application of our Lord's words to St. Peter, "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and do thou confirm thy brethren."

It is true that a division of opinion existed; and that is precisely why it was deemed advisable to settle the problem. Over 400 bishops had presented a petition in the Vatican Council that the matter should be settled once and for all. The vote at the Council was overwhelmingly in favor of defining the question. And accordingly the definition was given on July 18th, 1870, giving us, not a new doctrine, but a new statement in definite terms of the teaching contained in the original revelation of Christ.

It is quite normal that there should have been a division of opinion on the subject prior to the definition. It is precisely when men are divided on the question as to whether some major doctrine is part of divine revelation or not that a definition is necessary. At the Vatican Council, therefore, those who were for the definition, and those who were against it, were given freedom to express their views.

The Council was not characterized by unseemly brawling. The greatest possible freedom of discussion was granted, and on a question of such magnitude and importance, it would be surprising if opinions were not strong, and voiced with earnestness and even tenacity.

He declared that he personally believed the Pope to be infallible, but that he did not think it opportune to define the doctrine at that particular time. He was quite at liberty to be of that opinion. When the definition was given, he accepted it without hesitation.

They enjoyed the same freedom as Newman and all the others prior to the definition. The opinions held by those opposed to the definition did not constitute an infallible indication that the definition was wrong.

Against 430 bishops, about 100 bishops, chiefly from France, Austria, and Germany, said that they disapproved of the definition being given. When they saw that the overwhelming majority was against them, 44 of these 100 bishops at once accepted the inevitable. Fifty-six said that they personally disapproved of the definition being given then, but that they would faithfully and with true devotion to the Church accept the definition if indeed it were pronounced. Meantime, they withdrew from Rome quietly and privately, leaving a written declaration that they did not do so by way of protest against the decree, but simply because they did not wish to appear lacking in reverence towards the Pope by expressing in his presence their belief that the contemplated action was inopportune. Two bishops from amongst the inopportunists who remained did express their disapproval personally of the proposed definition; but the moment it was given, accepted at once, acknowledging the teaching authority of the Church, just as the 56 had guaranteed to do who had withdrawn.

The term "recalcitrant bishops" is not justified. A man is recalcitrant when he refuses to do what he is obliged to do. Prior to the definition, any bishop was quite free to express his reluctance to have the matter defined. After the definition, he was not free to refuse his assent. If he refused then, he would indeed be recalcitrant. But no bishop refused. It is true that some influential men - not a strong body of them - did refuse consent. These could truly be called recalcitrant Catholics; and they found themselves outside the Church as heretics.

His capacity as a citizen, of course, had no bearing on the subject, so we can eliminate that. As a Christian, historian, and theologian he was quite free to express his adverse opinion before the definition. But afterwards, his duty as a Christian, historian, and theologian, was to accept the verdict of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. He had not the humility to do so, and his pride in his own proficiency led him into the obstinacy of heresy.

God

Man

Religion

The Religion of the Bible

The Christian Religion

A Definite Christian Faith

The Problem of Reunion

The Truth of Catholicism

The Church and the Bible

The Dogmas of the Catholic Church

Moral Teachings of the Catholic Church

The Church in Her Worship

The Church and Social Welfare

Catholic Apologetics in Question & Answer Form

God

Man

Religion

The Religion of the Bible

The Christian Religion

A Definite Christian Faith

The Problem of Reunion

The Truth of Catholicism

The Church and the Bible

The Dogmas of the Catholic Church

Moral Teachings of the Catholic Church

The Church in Her Worship

The Church and Social Welfare

QUESTIONS IN VOLUME 3

301. Did not Jesus say that the clergy were of their father the devil?

302. Should servants of the Lord wear special dress to distinguish themselves from others?

303. How do you harmonize the fact that priests are called "Father" with Christ's words, "Call no man your father on earth"?

304. How is the priest a father of one's spiritual life?

305. Priestcraft seems to be everything in your Church, filling Catholics with superstitious dread.

306. Catholics are told that they owe the greatest respect and reverence to priests independently of their personal character and in spite of their faults.

307. I do not see why this should be so.

308. I read a book which said that a slanderer of a priest was a most despicable creature, and it quoted, "Touch not my holy ones," or some such phrase from Scripture.

309. What are the duties of Catholics in this matter?

310. Despite their privileged position, priests are often a disappointment to their own people.

311. The Church is not merely an organization, but its members are members of Christ's body.

312. Why have not the laity a say in the administration of your Church just as in Protestant Churches?

313. We Protestants do not believe in a "passive laity."

314. How do priests differ from Protestant ministers?

315. Jesus is our Great High Priest. Let us glorify Him, and not man.

316. Christ is the Head of the Church, and the Holy Spirit is the life-giving soul.

317. The hierarchy claims that whatever it binds on earth is binding in heaven. But Christ Himself did not have an open order from His Father to do or say what He liked.

318. As Christ did not make one new law, and warned us about the "commandments of men," is it likely that He would give men the power to make new laws?

319. Christ told them to teach what He had commanded them, not what they thought fit to devise.

320. Dean Inge says: "If those who are bitterly opposed to Christianity will take the trouble to trace those things in it which arouse their indignation to their sources, they will find, I think, that almost everything which offends them comes from ecclesiasticism, not from Christianity."

321. "Religious societies must exist" writes Dean Inge, "and it is not likely that a class of officials will ever be found who do not wish to increase their power."

323. What is needed, according to Dean Inge, is "entire detachment from ecclesiastical tradition which has completely upset the moral standards of the Gospels, counting disobedience to the hierarchy a graver offense than sins against love, truth

324. Could not the outward form of a Church, frequently borrowed from earlier systems, be so engrossing as to blind one to its development through human weakness and vanity from a simple truth?

325. What powers did Christ confer upon His Church?

326. You maintain that the Church will remain permanently the same till the end of the world?

327. Would you kindly read St. Mark, XVI., 17-18?

328. If the Catholic hierarchy desires to secure belief in itself, let its members do these things.

329. Priests can't do these things today.

330. If these promises were made to the disciples only, why are not other promises so interpreted, such as the promise of the power of binding and loosing in the Church?

331. You have repeatedly said that the Pope is the head on earth of your priestly hierarchy. But Christ is the Head of the Church, and there cannot be two heads to one body.

332. It is wrong for the Pope to arrogate to himself the title of "Vicar of God" on earth.

333. It is the height of presumption for any man to he called the Vicar of God.

334. Why is the Pope called "Holy Father"? Christ never called Peter by that title.

335. In early times the title of Pope was given to all bishops.

336. Then how were the successors of St. Peter distinguished from other bishops by the early Christians?

337. How can the Pope be Peter's lawful successor, when there was no Pope from St. Peter's death until the fourth century?

338. Then the Primacy is bound to find sanctuary in Rome, or Christendom will be without its head. What if Italy were invaded and the Pope expelled?

339. Where was Peter given power to transmit his office to others?

340. Matthew XVI., 18, 19, are ambiguous verses, which claim or claimed a respectable heterodoxy.

341. Any pretended religion trying to function on a couple of flagrantly distorted verses, to wit, Matthew XVI., 18, and XVIII., 17, is based on a very precarious foundation.

342. But then, Romanism, being infallible, can make and unmake, bind and loose, dictate the lives and words and consciences of men, make and unmake laws.

343. Judge Rutherford says that the Pope is antichrist, and the "seven-headed, ten-horned Beast"; whilst the Roman Church is "Satan's Organisation."

344. Who is the "man" referred to in Rev. XIII., 18?

345. There have been evil Popes. Was it God's will that they should be head of the Church?

346. Yet you have to believe that those Popes, sinful themselves, could do no wrong where the affairs of the Church were concerned?

347. Still Catholics are obliged to obey the Pope in all things.

348. Can you quote any testimonies to Papal claims to supremacy before the year 300 A. D.?

349. If the Pope was supreme head of the Church, why did the Emperors convene and preside over the Oecumenical Councils prior to the Greek Schism?

350. If the Pope were supreme in the Church, the bishops at the Council of Nicea, and the Bishop of Rome, surely would be aware of it.

351. Then why did the Council of Nicea confer on the Pope the title of Patriarch, but junior to the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria?

352. Let us go back a little further. What did the supreme Pope Victor do to the Asiatic Christians in 188-189?

353. What was the action of the bishops, and the results thereof?