# The Purpose of the Papacy

*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-18 — 1 clipping.*

---

> THE
>    PURPOSE OF THE PAPACY
> 
>    BY THE RIGHT REVEREND
>    JOHN S. VAUGHAN, D.D.
>    BISHOP OF SEBASTOPOLIS
> 
>    AUTHOR OF "THOUGHTS FOR ALL TIMES," "DANGERS OF THE DAY"
>    "LIFE AFTER DEATH," ETC., ETC.
> 
>      "Let us go back to the beginning of the sixteenth century.
>      Either there was a Church of God then in the world, or there
>      was not. If there was not, then the Reformers certainly
>      could not create such a Church. It there was, they as
>      certainly had neither the right to abandon it, nor the power
>      to remodel it."--J.K. STONE.
> 
>    London
>    SANDS & CO.
>    15 KING STREET, COVENT GARDEN
>    EDINBURGH: 21 HANOVER STREET
> 
>    ST. LOUIS, Mo., U.S.A.: B. HERDER
> 
>    1910
> 
> INTRODUCTION.
> 
> It may seem an impertinence on the present writer's part to indite a
> preface to the work of a brother Bishop; and it would be a still
> greater one to pretend to introduce the Author of this little book to
> the reading public, to whom he is so well and so favourably known by a
> stately array of preceding volumes. Nevertheless Bishop Vaughan has
> been so insistent on my contributing at least a few introductory
> lines, that, for old friendship's sake, I can no longer refuse.
> 
> It is a remarkable and outstanding fact that never before in the
> history of the Church has the Roman Papacy, though shorn of every
> vestige of its once formidable temporal might, loomed greater in the
> world, ruled over such vast multitudes of the faithful, or exercised
> a greater moral power than at the present day. Never has the
> _conscious_ unity of the whole world-wide Church with its Visible
> Head--thanks to the marvellous developments of modern means of
> communication and transport--been so vivid, so general, so intense as
> in these times. Not only does "the Pope's writ run," as we may say, by
> post and telegraph, and penetrate to the inmost recesses of every part
> of the globe, so that the Holy See is in daily, nay hourly
> communication with every bishop and every local Catholic community;
> but never has there been a time when so many thousands, nay tens of
> thousands of Catholic clergy and laity, even from the remotest lands,
> have actually seen the Vicar of Christ with their own eyes, heard his
> voice, received his personal benediction. Well may we say to Pius X.
> as to Leo XIII.: "Lift up thy eyes round about and see; all these are
> gathered together, they are come to thee; thy sons shall come from
> afar, and thy daughters shall rise up at thy side. Then shalt thou see
> and abound, and thy heart shall wonder and be enlarged, when the
> multitude of the sea shall be converted to thee, the strength of the
> Gentiles shall come to thee" (Isaias, lx. 4, 5).
> 
> But not only is the present position of the Papacy thus unique and
> phenomenal in the world; as the Author of this little book shows in
> his first part, its career across the more than nineteen centuries of
> the world's chequered history, from Peter to Pius X., is no less
> unique and no less phenomenal. This is a fact which may well rivet the
> attention, not of the Catholic alone, but of every thinking man, be he
> Christian or non-Christian, and which surely calls for some
> explanation that lies beyond and above that of the ordinary phenomena
> of history. The only possible satisfactory solution of this problem is
> the one so concisely, yet so simply, set forth in the following
> pages.
> 
> The second part is concerned with a more particular aspect of the same
> problem, in its relation to the Church in this country, and especially
> to that incredible latter-day myth which goes by the name of "the
> Continuity Theory". It is difficult to us to realise how such a theory
> can possibly be held by thoughtful and earnest men and women who have
> even a moderate acquaintance with history. Bishop Vaughan applies more
> than one touchstone, which, one would imagine, ought to be sufficient
> to prove to any unprejudiced mind the falsity of that theory. Among
> these, what I may call the "pallium touchstone,"--which still bears
> its irrefragable testimony in the arms of the Archbishops of
> Canterbury,[1]--has always appeared to me peculiarly conclusive.[2]
> 
> In the present small volume, Bishop Vaughan adds another to the series
> of popular and instructive books which have made his name a household
> word among Catholic writers. May its success and its utility be as
> great as in the case of those which have preceded it.
> 
>    [cross] LOUIS CHARLES,
>        _Bishop of Salford_.
> 
> FOOTNOTES:
> 
> [Footnote 1: Not in those of York since 1544, see Woodward's
> _Ecclesiastical Heraldry_, p. 191 and plate XX.]
> 
> [Footnote 2: See _The Pallium_, by Fr. Thurston, S.J., (C.T.S.) and
> the striking list in Baxter's _English Cardinals_, pp. 93-98.]
> 
> AUTHOR'S PREFACE.
> 
> The following chapters were not intended originally for publication.
> If they are now offered to the public in book form, it is only in
> response to the expressed request of many, who listened to them when
> delivered _viva voce_, and who now wish to possess a more permanent
> record of what was said.
> 
> In the hope that they may help, in some slight measure at least, to
> promote the sacred cause of truth, we wish them Godspeed.
> 
>    [cross] JOHN S. VAUGHAN,
>       _Bishop of Sebastopolis_.
> 
>    XAVERIAN COLLEGE,
>    MANCHESTER            _January_, 1910.
> 
> CONTENTS.
> 
> CHAP.                                                            PAGE
> 
>     I. GENERAL NOTIONS                                               3
> 
>    II. THE POPE'S GREAT PREROGATIVE                                 18
> 
>   III. WATCHMAN! WHAT OF THE NIGHT?                                 35
> 
>    IV. THE CHURCH AND THE SECTS                                     53
> 
>     V. THE POPE'S INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY                              69
> 
>    VI. THE POPE'S ORDINARY AUTHORITY                                87
> 
>    PART II.
> 
>    THE ANGLICAN THEORY OF CONTINUITY IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
>    OR
>    THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE IN ENGLAND IN PRE-REFORMATION TIMES.
> 
>        I. THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORMATION             107
> 
>       II. THE OATH OF OBEDIENCE                                    117
> 
>      III. THE AWKWARD DILEMMA                                      130
> 
>       IV. KING EDWARD AND THE POPE                                 145
> 
> THE PURPOSE OF THE PAPACY.
> 
> CHAPTER I.
> 
> GENERAL NOTIONS.
> 
> No one who is given to serious reflection, can gaze over the face of
> the earth at the present day without being struck by the religious
> confusion that everywhere reigns. Who, indeed, can help being
> staggered as well as saddened by the extraordinary differences, the
> irreconcilable views, and the diversities of opinion, even upon
> fundamental points, that are found dividing Christians in Protestant
> lands! The number of sects has so multiplied, that an earnest enquirer
> scarcely knows which way to turn, or where to look for the pure
> unadulterated truth. A spiritual darkness hangs over the non-Catholic
> world; and chaos seems to have come again.
> 
> Yet, amid this almost universal confusion, one bright and luminous
> path may be easily descried. As a broad highroad runs straight through
> some tangled forest, so this path runs through the ages, from the time
> of Christ, even to the present day.
> 
> We can trace its course, from its earliest inception in apostolic
> times, and then in its development age after age, down to our own day:
> from Peter to Gregory, from Gregory to Leo, and from Leo to Pius X.,
> now gloriously reigning. We refer to the mystical (and one might
> almost say the miraculous) path trodden by the Popes, each Pontiff
> carrying in turn, and then handing on to his successor, the glorious
> torch of divine truth. Though clouds may gather and thunders may roll,
> and tempests may rage, and though the surrounding darkness may grow
> deeper and deeper, that supernatural light has never failed, nor grown
> dim, nor refused to shed its beams and to illuminate the way.[3]
> 
> The continual persistency of the Papacy, to whom this steadily burning
> torch of truth has been entrusted, is unquestionably one of the most
> certain, as it is one of the most startling facts in the whole of
> history. It stares us full in the face. It arrests the attention of
> even the least observant. It puzzles the historian. It taxes the
> explanatory powers of the philosopher, and will remain to the end, a
> permanent difficulty to the scoffer and to the sceptic, and to all
> those who have not faith. As a fact in history, it is unique: forming
> an extraordinary exception to the law of universal change: a portent,
> and a standing miracle. Its persistence, century after century, in
> spite of fire and sword; of persecution from without, and of treachery
> from within; in prosperity, and in adversity; in honour and dishonour;
> while kingdoms rise and fall; and while one civilisation yields to a
> higher, and the very conditions of society shift and change, is deeply
> significative, and betokens an inherent strength and vitality that is
> more than natural and that must be referred to some source greater
> than itself, yea, to a power far mightier than anything in this
> world,--_viz._, to the abiding presence and divine support of Christ
> the Man-God.
> 
> Verily, there is but one possible explanation, and that explanation is
> furnished us, by the words of the promise made by God-incarnate,
> _viz._, "Behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of
> the world" (Matt, xxviii. 20). Yes, I, Who am "the true light which
> enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world" (John i. 9), "will
> abide with you for ever, and will lead you into all truth" (John xvi. 13).
> 
> If but few persons, outside the Catholic Church, realise the force and
> import of these words, it is because few realise the absolute and
> irresistible power of Him Who gave them utterance. With their lips
> they profess Christ to be God, but then, strange to relate, they
> proceed to reason and to argue, just as though He were merely
> man--one, that is to say, Who, when He established His Church, did
> not consider nor bear in mind man's weakness and fickleness, and who
> possessed no power to see the outcome of His own policy, nor the
> difficulties that it would engender, nor the future multiplication of
> the faithful, in every part of the world. For, did He know and foresee
> all these things, He _must_ have guarded against them; and this they
> _practically_ deny, by continuing to associate themselves with
> churches where His promises are in no sense fulfilled, and where His
> most solemn pledges remain unredeemed. We refer to those churches
> wherein there is no recognised infallible authority; in fact, nothing
> to protect their subjects from the inroads of the world, and from the
> faults and errors inseparable from the exercise of purely human and
> fallible reason.
> 
> Those, however, who can put aside such false notions, and awaken to
> the real facts, will find the truth growing luminous before their
> gaze. History constrains them to admit that it was Christ Who
> established the Church, with its supreme head, and its various
> members. But Christ is verily God; of the same nature, and one with
> the Father, and possessing the same divine attributes. Now, since He
> is God, there is to Him no future, just as there is no past. To him,
> all is equally present. Hence, in establishing a Church, and in
> providing it with laws and a constitution, He did this, not
> tentatively, not experimentally, not in ignorance of man's needs and
> weaknesses, and folly, but with a most perfect foreknowledge of every
> circumstance and event, actual and to come. He spoke and ordered and
> arranged all things, with His eyes clearly fixed on the most remote
> ages, no less than on the present and the actual. _We_ mortals write
> history after the characters have already lived and died, and when
> nations have already developed and run their course. But with Christ,
> the whole history of man, his wars and his conquests, his vices and
> his virtues, his religious opinions and doctrines, had been already
> written and completed, down to the very last line of the very last
> chapter, an eternity before He assumed our nature and founded His
> Church. It was with this most intimate knowledge before Him, that He
> promised to provide us with a reliable and infallible teacher, who
> should safeguard His doctrine, and publish the glad tidings of the
> Gospel, throughout all time, even unto the consummation of the world.
> Since it is God Who promises, it follows, with all the rigour of
> logic, that this fearless Witness and living Teacher must be a _fact_,
> not a _figment_; a stupendous reality, not a mere name; One, in a
> word, possessing and wielding the self-same authority as Himself, and
> to be received and obeyed and accepted as Himself: "Who heareth you
> heareth Me" (Luke x. 16).
> 
> This teacher was to be a supreme court of appeal, and a tribunal,
> before which every case could be tried, and definitely settled, once
> for all. And since this tribunal was a divine creation, and invested
> by God Himself with supernatural powers for that specific purpose, it
> must be fully equipped, and thoroughly competent and equal to its
> work. For God always adapts means to ends. Hence it can never
> resemble the tribunals existing in man-made churches, which can but
> mutter empty phrases, suggest compromises, and clothe thought in
> wholly ambiguous language--tribunals that dare not commit themselves
> to anything definite and precise. Yea, which utterly fail and break
> down just at the critical moment, when men are dividing and
> disagreeing among themselves, and most needing a prompt and clear
> decision, which may close up the breach and bring them together.
> 
> No! The decisions of the authority set up by Christ are in very
> truth--just what we expect to find them--_viz._, clear, ringing
> and definite. They divide light from darkness, as by a divine hand;
> and segregate truth from error, as a shepherd separates the sheep from
> the goats.
> 
> Christ promised as much as this, and if He keep not His promise, then
> He can hold out no claim to be God, for though Heaven and earth may
> pass away, God's words shall never pass away. That He did so promise
> is quite evident; and may be proved, first, _explicitly_, and from
> His own words, and secondly, _implicitly_, from the very necessity of
> the case; and from the whole history of religious development.
> Cardinal Newman, even before his reception into the Church, was so
> fully persuaded of this, that he wrote: "If Christianity is both
> social and dogmatic, and intended for all ages, it must, humanly
> speaking, have an infallible expounder.... By the Church of England a
> hollow uniformity is preferred to an infallible chair; and by the
> sects in England an interminable division" (_Develop._, etc., p. 90).
> In the Catholic Church alone the need is fully met.
> 
> The Church is established on earth by the direct act of God, and is
> set "as an army in battle array". It exists for the express purpose of
> combating error and repressing evil, in whatever form it may appear;
> and whether it be instigated by the devil, or the world, or the flesh.
> But, let us ask, Who ever heard of an army without a chief? An army
> without a supreme commander is an army without subordination and
> without law or order; or rather, it is not an army at all, but a
> rabble, a mob.
> 
> The supreme head of Christ's army--of Christ's Church upon earth, is
> our Sovereign Lord the Pope. Some will not accept his rule, and refuse
> to admit his authority. But this is not only to be expected. It was
> actually foretold. As they cried out, of old, to one even greater than
> the Pope, "We will not have this man to reign over us" (Luke xix. 14),
> so now men of similar spirit repeat the self-same cry, with regard to
> Christ's vicar.
> 
> Nevertheless, wheresoever his authority is loyally accepted, and where
> submission, respect and obedience are shown to him, there results the
> order and harmony and unity promised by Christ: while, on the
> contrary, where he is not suffered to reign there is disorder, rivalry
> and sects.
> 
> To be able to look forward and to foresee such opposite results would
> perhaps need a prophetic eye, an accurate estimate of human nature,
> and a very nice balancing of cause and effect. It could be the
> prognostication only of a wise, judicious, and observant mind. But we
> are now looking, not forwards, but backwards, and in looking backwards
> the case is reduced to the greatest simplicity, so that even a child
> can understand; and "he that runs may read".
> 
> The simplest intelligence, if only it will set aside prejudice and
> pride, and just attend and watch, will be led, without difficulty, to
> the following conclusions: firstly, without an altogether special
> divine support, no authority can claim and exercise _infallibility_ in
> its teaching; and secondly, without such infallibility in its teaching
> no continuous unity can be maintained among vast multitudes of people,
> least of all concerning dogmas most abstruse, mysteries most sublime
> and incomprehensible, and laws and regulations both galling and
> humiliating to human arrogance and pride.
> 
> It is precisely because the Catholic Church alone possesses such a
> supreme and infallible authority that she alone is able to present to
> the world that which follows directly from it, namely a complete
> unity and cohesion within her own borders.
> 
> Yes! Strange to say: the Catholic Church to-day stands alone! There is
> no rival to dispute with her, her unique and peerless position. Of all
> the so-called Christian Churches, throughout the world, so various and
> so numerous, and, in many cases, so modern and so fantastic, there is
> not a single one that can approach her, even distantly, whether it be
> in (_a_) the breadth of her influence, or in (_b_) the diversity and
> dissimilarity of her adherents, or in (_c_) the number of her
> children, or in (_d_) the extent of her conquests, or (_e_) in the
> absolute unity of her composition.
> 
> Even were it possible to unite into one single body the great
> multitude of warring sects, of which Protestantism is made up, such a
> body would fall far short of the stature of her who has received the
> gentiles for her inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for
> her possession (Ps. ii. 8), and who has the Holy Ghost abiding with
> her, century after century, in order that she may be "a witness unto
> Christ, in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the
> uttermost parts of the world" (Acts i. 8). But we cannot, even in
> thought, unite such contradictories, such discordant elements; any
> more than we can reduce the strident sounds of a multitude of
> cacophonous instruments to one harmonious and beautiful melody.
> 
> And if the Catholic Church stands thus alone, again we repeat, it is
> because no other has received the promise of divine support, or even
> cares to recognise that such a promise was ever made. The Catholic
> Church has been the only Church not only to exercise, but even to
> claim the prerogative of infallibility: but she has claimed this from
> the beginning. Every child born into her fold has been taught to
> profess and to believe, firstly, that the Catholic Church is the sole
> official and God-appointed guardian of the sacred deposit of divine
> truth, and, secondly, that she, and no other, enunciates to the entire
> world--to all who have ears to hear--the full revelation of
> Christ--_His truth_; the whole truth, and nothing but the truth;
> fulfilling, to the letter, the command of her Divine Master, "Go into
> the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mark xvi.
> 15).
> 
> How has this been possible? Simply and solely because God, Who
> promised that "the Spirit of Truth" (_i.e._, the Holy Ghost) "should
> abide with her for ever; and should guide her in all truth" (John xiv.
> 16, xvi. 12), keeps His promise. When our Lord promised to "_be with_"
> the teaching Church, in the execution of the divine commission
> assigned to it, "_always_" and "_to the end of the world_," that
> promise clearly implied, and was a guarantee, first, that the teaching
> authority should exist indefectibly to the end of the world; and
> secondly, that throughout the whole course of its existence it should
> be divinely guarded and assisted in fulfilling the commission given to
> it, _viz._, in instructing the nations in "all things whatsoever
> Christ has commanded," in other words, that it should be their
> infallible Guide and Teacher.
> 
> Venerable Bede, speaking of the conversion of our own country by
> Augustine and his monks, sent by Pope Gregory the Great, says: "And
> whereas he [Pope Gregory] bore the Pontifical power _over all the
> world_, and was placed over the Churches already reduced to the faith
> of truth, he made our nation, till then given up to idols, the Church
> of Christ" (_Hist. Eccl._ lib. ii. c. 1). If we will but listen to the
> Pope now, he will make it once again "the Church of Christ," instead
> of the Church of the "Reformation," and a true living branch, drawing
> its life from the one vine, instead of a detached and fallen branch,
> with heresy, like some deadly decay, eating into its very vitals.
> 
> FOOTNOTES:
> 
> [Footnote 3: No Pope, no matter what may have been his _private_
> conduct, ever promulgated a decree against the purity of faith and
> morals.]
> 
> CHAPTER II.
> 
> THE POPE'S GREAT PREROGATIVE.
> 
> The clear and certain recognition of a great truth is seldom the work
> of a day. We often possess it in a confused and hidden way, before we
> can detect, to a nicety, its exact nature and limitations. It takes
> time to declare itself with precision, and, like a plant in its
> rudimentary stages, it may sometimes be mistaken for what it is
> not--though, once it has reached maturity, we can mistake it no
> longer. As Cardinal Newman observes: "An idea grows in the mind by
> remaining there; it becomes familiar and distinct, and is viewed in
> its relations; it leads to other aspects, and these again to
> others.... Such intellectual processes as are carried on silently and
> spontaneously in the mind of a party or school, of necessity come to
> light at a later date, and are recognised, and their issues are
> scientifically arranged." Consequently, though dogma is unchangeable
> as truth is unchangeable, this immutability does not exclude progress.
> In the Church, such progress is nothing else than the development of
> the principles laid down in the beginning by Jesus Christ Himself.
> Thus--to take a simple illustration--in three different councils, the
> Church has declared and proposed three different articles of Faith,
> _viz._, that in Jesus Christ there are (1) two natures, (2) two wills,
> and (3) one only Person. These may seem to some, who cannot look
> beneath the surface, to be three entirely new doctrines; to be, in
> fact, "additions to the creed". In sober truth, they are but
> expansions of the original doctrine which, in its primitive and
> revealed form, has been known and taught at all times, that is to say,
> the doctrine that Christ is, at once, true God and true Man. That one
> statement really contains the other three; the other three merely give
> us a fuller and a completer grasp of the original one, but tell us
> nothing absolutely new.
> 
> In a similar manner, and by a similar process, we arrive at a clearer
> and more explicit knowledge of other important truths, which were not
> at first universally recognised as being contained in the original
> deposit. The dogma of Papal infallibility is an instance in point. For
> though no Catholic ever doubted the genuine infallibility of the
> _Church_, yet in the early centuries, there existed some difference of
> opinion, as to _where_ precisely the infallible authority resided.
> Most Catholics, even then, believed it to be a gift conferred by
> Christ upon Peter himself [who alone is the _rock_], and upon each
> Pope who succeeded him in his office, personally and individually, but
> some were of opinion that, not the Pope by himself, but only "the
> Pope-in-Council," that is to say, the Pope supported by a majority of
> Bishops, was to be considered infallible. So that, while _all_
> admitted the _Pope with a majority of the Bishops_, taken together, to
> be divinely safeguarded from teaching error, yet the prevailing and
> dominant opinion, from the very first, went much further, and ascribed
> this protection to the Sovereign Pontiff likewise when acting alone
> and unsupported. This is so well known, that even the late Mr.
> Gladstone, speaking as an outside observer, and as a mere student of
> history, positively brings it as a charge against the Catholic Church
> that "the Popes, for well-nigh a thousand years, have kept up, with
> comparatively little intermission, their claim to dogmatic
> infallibility" (_Vat._ p. 28). Still, the point remained unsettled by
> any dogmatic definition, so that, as late as in 1793, Archbishop Troy
> of Dublin did but express the true Catholic view of his own day when
> he wrote: "Many Catholics contend that the Pope, when teaching the
> Universal Church, as their supreme visible head and pastor, as
> successor to St. Peter, and heir to the promises of special assistance
> made to him by Jesus Christ, is infallible; and that his decrees and
> decisions in that capacity are to be respected as rules of faith, when
> they are dogmatical, or confined to doctrinal points of faith and
> morals. Others," the Archbishop goes on to explain, "deny this, and
> require the expressed or tacit acquiescence of the Church assembled or
> dispersed, to stamp infallibility on his dogmatic decrees." Then he
> concludes:--"_Until the Church shall decide_ upon this question of the
> Schools, either opinion may be adopted by individual Catholics,
> without any breach of Catholic communion or peace."
> 
> This was how the question stood until 1870. But it stands in that
> position no longer; for the Church has now spoken--_Roma locuta est,
> causa finita_. Hence, no Catholic can now deny or call into question
> the great prerogative of the Vicar of Christ, without suffering
> shipwreck of the faith. At the Vatican Council, Pope Pius IX. and the
> Archbishops and Bishops of the entire Catholic world were gathered
> together in Rome, and after earnest prayer and prolonged discussion,
> they declared that the prerogative of infallibility, which is the very
> source of Catholic unity, and the very secret of Catholic strength,
> resides in the individual Pope who happens, at the time, to occupy the
> Papal chair, and that when he speaks _ex cathedra_, his definitions
> are infallibly true, and consonant with Catholic revelation, even
> before they have been accepted by the hierarchy throughout the world.
> But here it must be borne in mind that the Pope speaks _ex cathedra_,
> that is to say, infallibly, only when he speaks:--
> 
>      1. As the Universal Teacher.
> 
>      2. In the name and with the authority of the Apostles.
> 
>      3. On a point of Faith or Morals.
> 
>      4. With the purpose of binding every member of the Church to
>         accept and believe his decision.
> 
> Thus it is clearly seen that from the year 1870 the dogma of _Papal_,
> in contra-distinction to _ecclesiastical_ infallibility, has been
> defined and raised to an article of faith, the denial of which is
> heresy.
> 
> The doctrine is at once new and yet not new. It is new in the sense
> that up to the time of the Vatican Council it had never been actually
> drawn out of the premises that contained it, and set forth before the
> faithful in a formal definition. On the other hand, it is not new, but
> as old as Christianity, in the sense that it was always contained
> implicitly in the deposit of faith. Any body of truth that is living
> grows, and unfolds and becomes more clearly understood and more
> thoroughly grasped, as time wears on. The entire books of Euclid are
> after all but the outcome of a few axioms and accepted definitions.
> These axioms help us to build up certain propositions. And one
> proposition, when established, leads to another, till at last we seem
> to have unearthed statements entirely new and original. Yet, they are
> certainly not really new, for had they not been all along contained
> implicitly in the few initial facts, it is quite clear they could
> never have been evolved from them. _Nemo dat, quod non habet._
> 
> Hence Papal Infallibility is not so much a new truth, or an "addition
> to the Faith," as some heretics would foolishly try to persuade us,
> as a clearer expression and a more exact and detailed presentation of
> what was taught from the beginning.
> 
> It is here that the well-known historian, Doellinger, who rejected the
> definition, proved himself to be not only a proud rebel but also a
> very poor logician. Until 1870, he was a practising Catholic, and,
> therefore, like every other Catholic, he, of course, admitted that the
> Pope and the Bishops, speaking collectively, were divinely supported
> and safeguarded from error, when they enunciated to the world any
> doctrine touching faith or morals. Yet, when the Pope and the Bishops,
> assembled at the Vatican, did so speak collectively, and did
> conjointly issue the decree of Papal Infallibility, he proceeded to
> eat his own words, refused to abide by their decision, and was
> deservedly turned out of the Church of God: being excommunicated by
> the Archbishop of Munich on the 17th of April, 1871, in virtue of the
> instructions given by Our Divine Lord Himself, _viz._: "If he will not
> hear the Church (cast him out, _i.e._), let him be to thee as the
> heathen and publican" (Matt. xviii. 17). He, and the few misguided men
> that followed him in his rebellion, and called themselves Old
> Catholics, had been quite ready to believe that the Pope, with the
> Bishops, when speaking as one body, were Infallible. In fact, if they
> had not believed that, they never could have been Catholics at any
> time. But they did not seem to realise the sufficiently obvious fact
> that, whether they will it or not, and whether they advert to it or
> not, it is utterly impossible now to deny the Infallibility of the
> Pope personally and alone, without at the same time denying the
> Infallibility of the "Pope and the Bishops collectively," for the
> simple reason that it is precisely the "Pope and the Bishops
> collectively" who have solemnly and in open session declared that the
> Pope enjoys the prerogative of Infallibility in his own individual
> person. Since the Vatican Council, one is forced by the strict
> requirements of sound reason to believe, either that the Pope is
> Infallible, or else that there is no Infallibility in the Church at
> all, and that there never had been.
> 
> Those who were too proud to submit to the definition followed, of
> course, the example of earlier heretics in previous Councils. They
> excused themselves on the plea that the Council was (_a_) not free, or
> else (_b_) not sufficiently representative, or, finally, (_c_) not
> unanimous in its decisions. But such utterly unsupported allegations
> served only to accentuate the weakness of their cause and the
> hopelessness of their position; since it would be difficult, from the
> origin of the Church to the present time, to find any Council so free,
> so representative, and so unanimous.
> 
> Pope Pius IX. (whom, it seems likely, we shall soon be called upon to
> venerate as a canonised saint) convened the Vatican Council by the
> Bull _AEterni Patris_, published on 29th June, 1868. It summoned all
> the Archbishops, Bishops, Patriarchs, etc., throughout the Catholic
> world to meet together in Rome on 8th December of the following year,
> 1869. When the appointed day arrived, and the Council was formally
> opened, there were present 719 representatives from all parts of the
> world, and very soon after, this number was increased to 769. On 18th
> July, 1870--a day for ever memorable in the annals of the Church--the
> fourth public session was held, and the constitution _Pater AEternus_,
> containing the definition of the Papal Infallibility, was solemnly
> promulgated. Of the 535 who were present on this grand occasion, 533
> voted for the definition (_placet_) and only two, one from Sicily, the
> other from the United States, voted against it (_non placet_).
> Fifty-five Bishops, who fully accepted the doctrine itself, but deemed
> its actual definition at that moment inopportune, simply absented
> themselves from this session. Finally, the Holy Father, in the
> exercise of his supreme authority, sanctioned the decision of the
> Council, and proclaimed officially, _urbi et orbi_ the decrees and the
> canons of the "First Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ".
> 
> It may be well here to clothe the Latin words of the Pope and the
> assembled Bishops in an English dress. They are as follows: "We (the
> Sacred Council approving) teach and define that it is a dogma
> revealed, that the Roman Pontiff, _when_ he speaks _ex cathedra_--that
> is, when discharging the office of Pastor and Teacher of all
> Christians, by reason of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a
> doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the whole Church--in
> virtue of the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter,
> possesses that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed
> that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith
> or morals, and that, therefore, such definitions of the said Sovereign
> Pontiff are unalterable of themselves, and not from the consent of the
> Church. But if any one--which may God avert--presume to contradict
> this our definition, let him be anathema."
> 
> "_Every Bishop in the Catholic world_, however inopportune some may
> have at one time held the definition to be, submitted to the
> Infallible ruling of the Church," says E.S. Purcell. "A very small and
> insignificant number of priests and laymen in Germany apostatised and
> set up the Sect of 'Old Catholics'. But all the rest of the Catholic
> world, true to their faith, accepted, without reserve, the dogma of
> Papal Infallibility."[4]
> 
> For over eighteen hundred years the Infallible authority of the
> Pope-in-Council had been admitted by all Catholics. And in any great
> emergency or crisis in the Church's history, these Councils were
> actually held, and presided over by the Pope, either in person or by
> his duly appointed representatives, for the purpose of clearing up and
> adjusting disputed points, or to smite, with a withering anathema, the
> various heresies as they arose, century after century. But in the
> meantime, the Church, which had been planted "like a grain of mustard
> seed, which is the least of all seeds" (Mark iv. 31), was fulfilling
> the prophecy that had been made in regard to her, and "was shooting
> out great branches" (Mark iv. 32) and becoming more extended and more
> prolific than all her rivals. She enlarged her boundaries and spread
> farther and farther over the face of the earth, while the number of
> her children rapidly multiplied in every direction.
> 
> In course of time, the immense continents of America and Australia,
> together with New Zealand and Tasmania and other hitherto unknown
> regions, were discovered and thrown open to the influences of human
> industry and enterprise. And as men and women swarmed into these newly
> acquired lands, the Church accompanied them: and new vicariates and
> dioceses sprang up, and important Sees were formed, which in time, as
> the populations thickened, became divided and sub-divided into smaller
> Sees, till at last the number of Bishops in these once unknown and
> distant regions rose to several hundreds.
> 
> Thus the whole condition of things became altered; and the calling
> together of an Ecumenical Council--a very simple affair in the
> infancy of the Church--was becoming daily more and more difficult. Not
> so much, perhaps, by reason of the enormous distances of the dioceses
> from the central authority, for modern methods of locomotion have
> almost annihilated space, but because of the immense increase in the
> number of the hierarchy that would have to meet together, whenever a
> Council is called.
> 
> On the other hand, with the greater extension of the Church, would
> naturally come an increased crop of heresies. For, cockle may be sown,
> and weeds may spring up, in any part of the field, and the field is
> now a hundred times vaster than it was. Now, it is extremely important
> that as fast as errors arise they should be pointed out, and rooted up
> without delay, and before they can breed a pestilence and corrupt a
> whole neighbourhood. But the complicated machinery of a great
> Ecumenical Council, which involves prolonged preparation, considerable
> expense, and a temporary dislocation in almost every diocese
> throughout the world, is too cumbersome and slow to be called into
> requisition whenever a heresy has to be blasted, or whenever a
> decision has to be made known.
> 
> Hence we cannot help recognising and admiring the Providence of God
> over His Church, in thus simplifying the process, in these strenuous
> days, by which His truth is to be maintained and His revelation
> protected. For the fact--true from the beginning, _viz._, that the
> Pope enjoys the prerogative of personal infallibility--is not only a
> profound truth; but a truth for the first time formally recognised,
> defined, promulgated and explicitly taught as an article of Divine
> faith. Consequently, without summoning a thousand Bishops from the
> four quarters of the globe, the Sovereign Pontiff may now rise in his
> own strength, and proclaim to the entire Church what is, and what is
> not, consonant with the truths of revelation. This is evident from the
> Vatican's definition, which declares that "THE POPE HAS THAT SAME
> INFALLIBILITY WHICH THE CHURCH HAS"--"Romanum Pontificem ea
> infallibilitate pollere, qua divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam suam in
> definienda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit". Words
> of the Bull, "PASTOR AETERNUS".
> 
> FOOTNOTES:
> 
> [Footnote 4: See _Life of Cardinal Manning_, vol. ii., p. 452.]
> 
> CHAPTER III.
> 
> WATCHMAN! WHAT OF THE NIGHT?
> 
> The most sacred deposit of Divine Revelation has been committed by
> Jesus Christ to the custody of the Church, and century after century
> she has guarded it with the utmost jealousy and fidelity. Like a loyal
> watchman, stationed on a lofty tower, the Pope, with anxious eyes,
> scans the length and breadth of the world, and, as the occasion
> demands, boldly, and fearlessly, and categorically condemns and
> anathematises all who, through pride or cunning, or personal interest
> and ambition, or love of novelty, attempt to falsify or to minimise or
> to distort the teaching of Our Divine Master. Without respect of
> persons, without regard to temporal consequences, without either
> hesitancy or ambiguity, he speaks "as one having power" (Matt. vii.
> 29). And while, on the one hand, every true Catholic throughout the
> world, who hears his voice, is intimately conscious that he is hearing
> the voice of Christ Himself, "who heareth you, heareth Me" (Luke x.
> 16); so, on the other hand, every true Catholic likewise knows that
> all who refuse to obey his ruling, and who despise his warnings, are
> despising and disobeying Christ Himself. "Who despises you, despises
> Me" (Luke x. 16). Thus, the Sovereign Pontiff, as the infallible
> source of religious truth, becomes at the same time the strong bond of
> religious unity: for, just as error divides men from one another, so
> truth always and necessarily draws them together. In this way the Pope
> becomes the connecting link which unites over 250,000,000 of men: and
> the foundation stone (or petros--Peter) of the mystical building
> erected by God-incarnate ("Upon this rock will I build My Church,"
> Matt. xvi. 18). He is the foundation, that is to say, which supports
> it, and keeps its various parts together, in one harmonious and
> symmetrical whole, and against which the angry surges rise, and the
> muddy waves of error for ever beat, yet ever beat in vain: for "the
> gates of hell [Satan and his hosts] shall not prevail against it". Who
> doubts this denies the most formal and unmistakable promises of the
> Eternal Son of God, and makes of Him a liar.
> 
> Our non-Catholic friends close their eyes to these patent facts,
> and--with great peril to their salvation--refuse to see even the
> obvious. As the Jews of old were so blinded by their prejudice,
> jealousy and hatred of Him, whom they contemptuously styled "the Son
> of the Carpenter," that they steadily refused to consider the justice
> of His claims, and could not (or would not?) bring themselves to
> understand how clearly the Scriptures bore witness to His divinity,
> and how marvellously the prophecies and predictions (the words of
> which they accepted), were fulfilled in His Divine Person; so now
> Protestants steadily refuse to consider the claims of Her whom they
> contemptuously style "the Romish Church," and are so prejudiced and
> full of suspicion, if not of hate, that they too cannot bring
> themselves to understand how She, like her Divine Founder, bears upon
> her immortal brow the distinctive and unmistakable impress of her
> supernatural origin and destiny. The Incarnate Son of God, who never
> asks, nor can ask in vain, implored His Heavenly Father, that all His
> followers might be one, and why? In order that this marvellous unity
> might ever be fixed as a seal of authenticity to His Church, and be to
> all men a permanent sign and proof of her genuineness.
> 
> "Father," He prayed, grant "that they may ALL BE ONE, as Thou art in
> Me, and as I am in Thee, that they also may be one in us, THAT THE
> WORLD MAY KNOW that Thou hast sent Me" (John xvii. 21). Unity, then,
> is undeniably the test and sign-manual attached by Christ to His
> Bride, the Church; the presence or absence of which must (if there be
> any truth in God) determine the genuineness or the falsity of every
> claimant.
> 
> Now, this mark is nowhere found outside the One, Holy, Catholic and
> Apostolic Church, whose centre is in Rome.
> 
> Other Churches not merely do not possess unity. They do not possess so
> much as the requisite machinery to produce it, nor even the means of
> preserving it, if produced.
> 
> With us, on the contrary, it flows as naturally and as directly from
> the recognised Supremacy and Infallibility of the Vicar of Christ as
> light flows from the sun. It is so manifest that it would seem only
> the blind can fail to see it: so that one is sometimes puzzled to know
> how to excuse educated Protestants from the damnable sin of _vincible_
> ignorance. Thus, the faithful throughout the entire world are in
> constant communication with their respective pastors; the pastors, in
> their turn, are in direct communication with their respective Bishops,
> and the Bishops, dispersed throughout the length and breadth of
> Christendom, are in close and direct communication with the one
> Supreme and Infallible Ruler, whom the Lord has placed over all His
> possessions; who has been promised immunity from error; and whose
> special duty and office is to "confirm his brethren" (Luke xxii. 32).
> By this most simple, yet most practical and effective expedient, the
> very least and humblest catechumen in China or Australia is as truly
> in touch with the central authority at the Vatican, and as completely
> under its direction in matters of faith and morals, as the crowned
> heads of Spain or Austria, or as the Archbishops of Paris or Malines.
> Certainly _Digitus Dei est hic_: the finger of God is here. The simple
> fact is, there is always something about the works of God which
> clearly differentiate them from the products of man, however close may
> be the mere external and surface resemblance. A thousand artists may
> carve a thousand acorns, so cunningly coloured, and so admirably
> contrived as to be practically indistinguishable from the genuine
> fruit of the oak. Each of these thousand artists may present me with
> his manufactured acorn, and may assure me of its genuineness. And,
> alas! I may be quite deceived and taken in; yes, but only _for a
> time_. When I plant them in the soil, together with the genuine acorn,
> and give them time to develop, the fraud is detected, and the truth
> revealed. For the real seed proves its worth. How? In the simplest way
> possible, that is to say, by actually doing what it was destined and
> created to do. That is, by growing and developing into a majestic oak,
> while the false and human imitations fall to pieces, belie all one's
> hopes, and are found to produce neither branch nor leaf nor fruit.
> 
> This is but an illustration of what may be observed equally in the
> spiritual order, although there it is attended by more disastrous
> consequences. Thus we find hundreds of Churches proclaiming themselves
> to be foundations of God, which Time, the old Justice who tries all
> such offenders, soon proves, most unmistakably, to be nothing but the
> contrivances of man. They may bear a certain external resemblance to
> the true Church, planted by the Divine Husbandman, but like the
> man-made acorns, they deceive all our expectations, and are wholly
> unable to redeem their promises, or to live up to their pretensions.
> 
> For, while one and all declare with their lips that they possess the
> truth as revealed by Christ, their glaring divisions, irreconcilable
> differences, and internal dissensions emphatically prove that the
> truth is not in them: and that they have been built, not on the rock,
> but on the shifting sand, and are the erections, not of God, but of
> feeble, fickle men.
> 
> On the other hand, the Catholic Church, amid a thousand sects,
> resembles the genuine acorn among the thousand imitations. Not only
> does she alone possess the whole truth; but she alone can stand up and
> actually prove this claim to the entire world, by pointing defiantly
> at her marvellous and miraculous unity--a unity so conspicuous, and so
> striking, and so absolutely unique, that even the hostile and bigoted
> Protestant press can sometimes scarcely refrain from bearing an
> unwilling testimony to it.
> 
> We might give many instances of this, and quote from many sources, but
> let the following extract from London's leading journal serve as an
> example. It is no other paper than the _Times_, which makes the
> following admission on occasion of the Vatican Council which opened in
> 1869: "Seven hundred Bishops, more or less, representing all
> Christendom, were seen gathered round one altar and one throne,
> partaking of the same Divine Mystery, and rendering homage, by turns,
> to the same spiritual authority and power. As they put on their
> mitres, or took them off, and as they came to the steps of the altar,
> or the foot of the common spiritual Father, it was IMPOSSIBLE
> not to feel the UNITY and the power of the Church which they
> represented" (16th Dec., 1869). Here, then, is the most influential
> journal certainly of Great Britain, perhaps of the world, proclaiming
> to its readers far and wide, not simply that the Roman Catholic Church
> is one, but that her oneness is of such a sterling quality, and of so
> pronounced a character that it is impossible--mark the word,
> impossible!--not to feel it. Yet men ask where the Church of God is to
> be found. They ask for a sign, and lo! when God gives them one they
> cannot see it, nor interpret it, nor make anything out of it: and
> prefer to linger on in what Newman calls "the cities of confusion,"
> than find peace and security in "the communion of Rome, which is that
> Church which the Apostles set up at Pentecost, which alone has 'the
> adoption of sons, and the glory and the covenants and the revealed
> law, and the service of God and the promises,' and in which the
> Anglican [or any other Protestant] communion, whatever it merits and
> demerits, whatever the great excellence of individuals in it, has, as
> such, no part". But this is a digression. Let us return to our
> subject.
> 
> The incontestable value and immense practical importance of the Papal
> prerogative of infallibility have been rendered abundantly manifest
> ever since its solemn definition nearly forty years ago. In fact,
> although the enormous increase of the population of the world has not
> rendered the position of the Sovereign Pontiff any easier, yet he is
> better fitted and equipped since the definition to cope promptly and
> effectually with errors and heresies as they arise than he was before.
> We do not mean that his prerogative of infallibility is invoked upon
> every trivial occasion--one does not call for a Nasmyth hammer to
> break a nut--but it is always there, in reserve, and may be used, on
> occasion, even without summoning an Ecumenical Council, and this is a
> matter of some consequence. For, though time may bring many changes
> into the life of man, and may improve his physical condition and
> surroundings, and add enormously to his comfort, health, and general
> corporal well-being, it is found to produce no corresponding effect
> upon his corrupt and fallen nature, which asserts itself as vigorously
> now, after nearly two thousand years of Christianity, as in the past.
> Pride and self still sway men's hearts. The spirit of independence and
> self-assertion and egotism, in spite of all efforts at repression,
> continue to stalk abroad. And human nature, even to-day, is almost as
> impatient of restraint, and as unwilling to bear the yoke of
> obedience, as in the time when Gregory resisted Henry of Germany, or
> when Pius VII. excommunicated Napoleon. If, even in the Apostolic age,
> when the number of the faithful was small and concentrated, there
> were, nevertheless, men of unsound views--"wolves in sheep's
> clothing"--amongst the flock of Christ, how much more likely is this
> to be the case now. If the Apostle St. Paul felt called upon to warn
> his own beloved disciples against those "who would not endure sound
> doctrine," and who "heaped to themselves teachers, having itching
> ears," and who even "closed their ears to the truth, in order to
> listen to fables" (2 Tim. iv. 1-5), surely we may reasonably expect to
> find, even in our own generation, many who have fallen, or who are in
> danger of falling under the pernicious influence of false teachers,
> and who are being seduced and led astray by the plausible, but utterly
> fallacious, reasoning of proud and worldly spirits. It would be easy
> to name several, but they are too well known already to need further
> advertising here.
> 
> Then, she has adversaries without, as well as within. For, though the
> Church is not _of_ the world, she is _in_ the world. Which is only
> another way of saying that she is surrounded continually and on all
> sides by powerful, subtle, and unscrupulous foes. "The world is the
> enemy of God," and therefore of His Church. If its votaries cannot
> destroy her, nor put an end to her charmed life, they hope, at least,
> to defame her character and to blacken her reputation. They seize
> every opportunity to misrepresent her doctrine, to travesty her
> history, and to denounce her as retrograde, old fashioned, and out of
> date. And, what makes matters worse, the falsest and most mischievous
> allegations are often accompanied by professions of friendship and
> consideration, and set forth in learned treatises, with an elegance of
> language and an elevation of style calculated to deceive the simple
> and to misguide the unwary. It is Father W. Faber who remarks that,
> "there is not a new philosophy nor a freshly named science but what
> deems, in the ignorance of its raw beginnings, that it will either
> explode the Church as false or set her aside as doting" (Bl. Sac.
> Prologue). Indeed the world is always striving to withdraw men and
> women from their allegiance to the Church, through appeals to its
> superior judgment and more enlightened experience; and philosophy and
> history and even theology are all pressed into the service, and
> falsified and misrepresented in such a manner as to give colour to its
> complaints and accusations against the Bride of Christ, who, it is
> seriously urged, "should make concessions and compromises with the
> modern world, in order to purchase the right to live and to dwell
> within it". What is the consequence? Let the late Cardinal Archbishop
> and the Bishops of England answer. "Many Catholics," they write in
> their joint pastoral, "are consequently in danger of forfeiting not
> only their faith, but even their independence, by taking for granted
> as venerable and true the halting and disputable judgment of some men
> of letters or of science which may represent no more than the wave of
> some popular feeling, or the views of some fashionable or dogmatising
> school. The bold assertions of men of science are received with awe
> and bated breath, the criticisms of an intellectual group of _savants_
> are quoted as though they were rules for a holy life, while the mind
> of the Church and her guidance are barely spoken of with ordinary
> patience."
> 
> In a world such as this, with the agents of evil ever active and
> threatening, with error strewn as thorns about our path at every step,
> and with polished and seductive voices whispering doubt and suggesting
> rebellion and disobedience to men, already too prone to disloyalty,
> and arguing as cunningly as Satan, of old, argued with Eve; in such a
> world, who, we may well ask, does not see the pressing need as well as
> the inestimable advantages and security afforded by a living,
> vigilant, responsible and supreme authority, where all who seek, may
> find an answer to their doubts, and a strength and a firm support in
> their weakness?
> 
> And as surely as the need exists, so surely has God's watchful
> providence supplied it, in the person of the Supreme Pontiff, the
> venerable Vicar of Christ on earth. He is authorised and commissioned
> by Christ Himself "to feed" with sound doctrine, both "the lambs and
> the sheep"; and faithfully has he discharged that duty. "The Pope,"
> writes Cardinal Newman, "is no recluse, no solitary student, no
> dreamer about the past, no doter upon the dead and gone, no projector
> of the visionary. He, for eighteen hundred years, has lived in the
> world; he has seen all fortunes, he has encountered all adversaries,
> he has shaped himself for all emergencies. If ever there was a power
> on earth who had an eye for the times, who has confined himself to the
> practicable, and has been happy in his anticipations, whose words have
> been facts, and whose commands prophecies, such is he, in the history
> of ages, who sits, from generation to generation, in the chair of the
> Apostles, as the Vicar of Christ, and the Doctor of His Church."
> 
> "These are not the words of rhetoric," he continues, "but of history.
> All who take part with the Apostle are on the winning side. He has
> long since given warrants for the confidence which he claims. From the
> first, he has looked through the wide world, of which he has the
> burden; and, according to the need of the day, and the inspirations of
> his Lord, he has set himself, now to one thing, now to another; but to
> all in season, and to nothing in vain.... Ah! What grey hairs are on
> the head of Judah, whose youth is renewed like the eagle's, whose feet
> are like the feet of harts, and underneath the Everlasting Arms."
> Would that our unfortunate countrymen, tossed about by every wind of
> doctrine, and torn by endless divisions, could be persuaded to set
> aside pride and prejudice, and to accept the true principle of
> religious unity and peace established by God. Then England would
> become again, what she was for over a thousand years, _viz._: "the
> most faithful daughter of the Church of Rome, and of His Holiness, the
> one Sovereign Pontiff and Vicar of Christ upon earth," as our Catholic
> forefathers were wont to describe her.
> 
> CHAPTER IV.
> 
> THE CHURCH AND THE SECTS.
> 
> A natural tendency is apparent in all men to differ among themselves,
> even concerning subjects which are simple and easily understood;
> while, on more difficult and complicated issues, this tendency is, of
> course, very much more pronounced. Hence, the well-known proverb:
> "_Quot homines, tot sententiae_"--there are as many opinions as there
> are men.
> 
> Now, if this is found to be the case in politics, literature, art,
> music, and indeed in everything else, except perhaps pure mathematics,
> it is found to be yet more universally the case in questions of
> religion, since religion is a subject so much more sublime, abstruse,
> and incomprehensible than others, and so full of supernatural and
> mysterious truths, with which no merely human tribunal has any
> competency to deal. Then, let me ask, what chance has a man of
> arriving at a right decision on the most important of all
> questions--questions concerning his own eternal salvation--who is
> thrown into the midst of a world where there is no uniformity of view
> on spiritual matters, where every variety of opinion is expressed and
> defended, and where every conceivable form of worship has its fervent
> supporters and followers.
> 
> Or, leaving all others out of account, may we not well ask how the
> vast multitudes even of Catholics, scattered throughout such a world
> as this, are to maintain "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
> peace" (Eph. iv. 3), to preserve the tenets of their creed intact, and
> to discriminate accurately and readily between the teaching of God,
> and the fallacious doctrines of men? In dealing with anxious and angry
> disputants there is little use to appeal, as Protestants do, to the
> authority of teachers who have nothing more to commend them than a
> learning and an intelligence but little better than that of their
> disciples. Where man differs from man each will prefer his own view,
> and claim that his personal opinion is as deserving of respect and as
> likely to be right as his adversary's--which is practically what
> obtains among non-Catholics at the present day. Indeed, the only
> superhuman and infallible authority on earth recognised by them is the
> Bible; and that, alas! has proved a block of stumbling and not a bond
> of union, since, in the hands of unscrupulous men, it may be made to
> prove absolutely anything. The most sacred and fundamental truths,
> even such as the sublime doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, the Divinity
> of Christ, and the Atonement, have all, at one time or another, been
> vehemently denied _on the authority of the Bible_! The Anglican Bishop
> Colenso, in writing to the _Times_, could quote eleven texts of
> Scripture to prove that prayer ought not to be offered to Our Divine
> Lord! yet, it made no difference. He was allowed to go on teaching
> just as before! No one seemed to care. What is "pure Gospel" to Mr.
> Brown is "deadly error" to Mr. Green; while "the fundamental verities"
> of Mr. Thompson are "the satanical delusions" of Mr. Johnson. In fact,
> there is really less dispute among men as to the interpretation of the
> Vedas, of Chinese chronology, or of Egyptian archaeology, than of the
> Bible, which, to the eternal dishonour of Protestant commentators, has
> now almost ceased to have any definite meaning whatever, because every
> imaginable meaning has been defended by some and denied by others. It
> is beyond dispute that the Bible, without an infallible Teacher to
> explain its true meaning, will be of no use whatsoever as a bond of
> unity.
> 
> If the unity, promised by God-incarnate, is to be secured, the present
> circumstances of the case, as well as the actual experience of many
> centuries, prove three conditions to be absolutely necessary, _viz._:
> a teacher who is _firstly_ ever living and accessible; _secondly_, who
> can and will speak clearly and without ambiguity; and _thirdly_, and
> most essential of all, whose decisions are authoritative and
> decisive. One, in a word, who can pass sentence and close a
> controversy, and whose verdict will be honoured and accepted _as
> final_ by all Catholics without hesitation. These three requisites are
> found in the person of the infallible Head of the Catholic Church, but
> nowhere else.
> 
> Experience shows that where, in religion, there is nothing but mere
> human learning to guide, however great such learning may be, there
> will always be room left for some differences of opinion. In such
> controversies even the learned and the well read will not all arrange
> themselves on one side; but will espouse, some one view, and some
> another. We find this to be the case everywhere. And, since the Church
> of England offers us as striking and as ready an example as any other,
> we cannot do better than invoke it as both a warning and a witness.
> 
> Though her adherents are but a small fraction, compared with
> ourselves, and though they are socially and politically far more
> homogeneous than we Catholics, who are gathered from all the nations
> of the earth, yet even they, in the absence of any universally
> recognised and infallible head, are split up into a hundred fragments.
> 
> So that, even on the most essential points of doctrine, there is
> absolutely no true unanimity. This is so undeniable that Anglican
> Bishops themselves are found lamenting and wringing their hands over
> their "unhappy divisions". Still, we wish to be perfectly just, so, in
> illustration of our contention, we will select, not one of those
> innumerable minor points which it would be easy to bring forward, but
> some really crucial point of doctrine, the importance of which no man
> in his senses will have the hardihood to deny. Let us say, for
> instance, the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. Can we conceive anything
> that a devout Christian would be more anxious to ascertain than
> whether Our Divine Lord and Saviour be really and personally and
> substantially present under the appearance of bread, or no! Picture to
> yourselves, then, a fervent worshipper entering an Anglican church,
> where they are said "to reserve," and kneeling before the Tabernacle.
> Just watch the poor unfortunate man utterly and hopelessly unable to
> decide whether he is prostrating and pouring out his soul before a
> mere memorial, a simple piece of common bread, or before the Infinite
> Creator of the Universe, the dread King of kings, and Lord of lords,
> in Whose presence the very angels veil their faces, and the strong
> pillars of heaven tremble! Imagine a Church where such a state of
> things is possible! Yet, we have it on the authority of an Anglican
> Bishop--and I know not where we shall find a higher authority--that
> this is indeed the case; as may be gathered from the following words,
> taken from a "charge" by the late Bishop Ryle, which are surely clear
> enough: "One section of our (_i.e._, Anglican) clergy," says the
> Bishop, "maintains that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice, and another
> maintains with equal firmness that it is not.... One section maintains
> that there is a real objective presence of Christ's Body and Blood
> under the forms of the consecrated bread and wine. The other maintains
> that there is no real presence whatsoever, except in the hearts of the
> believing communicant."[5] Was such a state of pitiable helplessness
> ever seen or heard or dreamed of anywhere! And yet this church, please
> to observe, is supposed to be a body sent by God to teach. Heaven
> preserve us from such a teacher. As a further illustration of the
> utter incompetency of the Establishment to perform this primary duty,
> we may call to mind the strikingly instructive correspondence that was
> published some years ago between his Grace Archbishop Sumner and Mr.
> Maskell, who very naturally and very rightly sought direction from his
> Ordinary concerning certain points of doctrine, of which he was in
> doubt.
> 
> "You ask me," writes the Archbishop to Mr. Maskell, "whether you are
> to conclude that you ought not to teach, and have not the authority of
> the [Anglican] Church to teach any of the doctrines spoken of in your
> five former questions, in the dogmatical terms there stated."
> 
> Here, then, we have a perfectly fair and straightforward question,
> deserving an equally clear and straightforward answer: and such as
> would be given at once if addressed by any Catholic enquirer to _his_
> Bishop. But how does the Anglican Archbishop proceed to calm and
> comfort this helpless, agitated soul, groping painfully in the dark?
> What is his Grace's reply? He cannot refer the matter to a Sovereign
> Pontiff, for no Pontiff in the Anglican Church is possessed of any
> sovereignty whatsoever. In fact the Archbishop himself has to "verily
> testify and declare that His Majesty the King is the only supreme
> Governor in _spiritual_ and _ecclesiastical_ things as well as
> temporal," etc.[6] Nor dare he solve these troublesome doubts himself:
> for he is no more infallible than his questioner. Then what does he
> do? Practically nothing. He throws the whole burden back upon poor
> Mr. Maskell, and leaves him to struggle with his doubts as best he
> may. Thus; though the Church _of God_ was established to "teach all
> nations," and _must_ still be teaching all nations if she exist at
> all; the Church _of England_ seems unable to teach one nation, or even
> one man.
> 
> But to continue. The Archbishop begins by putting Mr. Maskell a
> question. "Are they (_i.e._, the doctrines about which he is seeking
> information) contained in the Word of God? St. Paul says, 'Preach the
> Word'.... Now whether the doctrines concerning which you inquire are
> contained in the Word of God, and can be proved thereby, _you have the
> same means_ of discovering for yourself as I have, and I have no
> special authority to declare."
> 
> Did any one ever witness such an exhibition of ineptitude and
> spiritual asthenia? We can conceive a man rejecting all revelation. It
> is possible even to conceive a man denying the Divinity of Christ. But
> we know nothing that would ever enable us even to conceive that
> Infinite Wisdom and Infinite Power had established a Church which
> cannot teach, or had sent an ambassador utterly unable to deliver His
> message. There is no use for such Church as that. Total silence is
> better than incoherent speech. What is the consequence? The
> consequence is that in the Anglican community endless variations and
> differences exist and flourish side by side, not alone in matters
> where differences are comparatively of little account, but in even the
> most momentous and fundamental doctrines, such as the necessity of
> Baptism, the power of Absolution, the nature of the Holy Eucharist,
> the effects of the sacrament of Holy Orders, and so forth. Were it not
> for the iron hand of the State, which grasps her firmly, and binds her
> mutually repellent elements together, she must have fallen to pieces
> long ago. Now, we must beg our readers to consider well, that from the
> very terms of the institution such a deplorable state of things as we
> have been contemplating is absolutely impossible and unthinkable in
> the Church (1) which _God-incarnate_ founded, _for the express
> purpose of handing down His doctrine_, pure and undefiled to the end
> of time; and (2) with which He promised to abide for ever; and (3)
> which the Holy Ghost Himself, speaking through St. Paul, declared to
> be "the pillar and ground of truth" (1. Tim. iii. 15). Nevertheless,
> if the Catholic Church, numbering over 250,000,000 of persons, is not
> to fall into the sad plight that has overtaken all the small churches
> that have gone out from her, she must not only desire unity, as, no
> doubt, all the sects desire it, but she must have been provided by her
> all-wise Founder with what none of them even profess to possess,
> _viz._, some simple, workable, and effective means of securing it.
> This means, as practical as it is simple, is no other than one supreme
> central and living authority, enjoying full jurisdiction over
> all--that is to say, the authority of Peter, ever living in his See,
> and speaking, now by the lips of Leo, and now by the lips of Pius, but
> always in the name, and with the authority, and under the guidance of
> Him who, in the plenitude of His divine power, made Peter the
> immovable rock, against which the gates of hell may indeed expend
> their fury, but against which they never have prevailed and never can
> prevail. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against Thee." That any
> one can fail to understand the meaning of these inspired words; that
> any one can give them any application save that which they receive in
> the Catholic Church, is but another illustration of the extraordinary
> power of prejudice and pride to blind the reason and to darken the
> understanding.
> 
> Without this final Court of Appeal, set up by the wisdom of God, the
> Church would disintegrate and fall into pieces to-morrow. To remove
> from the Church of Christ the infallibility of the Pope would be like
> removing the hub from the wheel, the key-stone from the arch, the
> trunk from the tree, the foundation from the house. For, in each case
> the result must mean confusion. If such a result could ever have been
> doubted in the past, it can surely be doubted no longer. The sad
> experience of the past three hundred years speaks more eloquently than
> any words; and its verdict is conclusive. It proves two things beyond
> dispute. The _first_ is, that even the largest and most heterogeneous
> body of men may be easily united and kept together, if they can all be
> brought to recognise and obey one supreme authority; and the _second_
> is, that, even a small and homogeneous body of men will soon divide
> and split up into sections, if they cannot be brought to recognise
> such an authority.
> 
> Further, any one looking out over the face of Christendom, with an
> unprejudiced eye, for the realisation of that unity which Christ
> promised to affix to his Church as an infallible sign of authenticity,
> will find it in the Catholic Communion, but certainly nowhere
> else--least of all in the Church of England.
> 
> "What," asks a well-known writer in unfeigned astonishment, "what
> opinion is not held within the Established Church? Were not Dr.
> Wilberforce and Dr. Colenso, Dr. Hamilton and Dr. Baring equally
> Bishops of the Church of England? Were not Dr. Pusey and Mr. Jowett
> at the same time her professors; Father Ignatius and Mr. Bellew her
> ministers; Archdeacon Denison and Dr. M'Neile her distinguished
> ornaments and preachers? Yet their religions differed almost as widely
> as Buddhism from Calvinism, or the philosophy of Aristotle from that
> of Martin Tupper." If a Catholic priest were to teach a single
> heretical doctrine, he would be at once cashiered, and turned out of
> the Church. But "if an Anglican minister must resign because his
> opinions are at variance with some other Anglican minister, every soul
> of them would have to retire, from the Archbishop of Canterbury down
> to the last licentiate of Durham or St. Bees".
> 
> As surely as infallibility is the essential prerogative of a divinely
> constituted Teaching Church, so surely can it exist only in that
> institution which alone has always claimed it, both as her gift by
> promise and the sole explanation of her triumphs and her perpetuity.
> It would be the idlest of dreams to search for it in a fractional part
> of a modern community, like the Church of England, which had always
> disowned and scoffed at it, and which could account for its own
> existence ONLY on the plea that the Promises of God had
> signally failed, and that _it_ alone was able to correct the failure.
> 
> Men ask for some sign, by which they may recognise the true Church of
> God and discriminate it readily from all spurious imitations. God, in
> His mercy, offers them a sign--namely UNITY. Yet they hesitate and
> hold back, and refuse to guide their tempest-tossed barques by its
> unerring light into the one Haven of Salvation.
> 
> FOOTNOTES:
> 
> [Footnote 5: See Charge, etc., dated November, 1893.]
> 
> [Footnote 6: _Ang. Ministry_, by Hutton, p. 504.]
> 
> CHAPTER V.
> 
> THE POPE'S INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY.
> 
> 1. The Church of God can be but one; because God is truth: and, truth
> can be but one. The world may, and (as a matter of fact) does abound
> in false Churches, just as it abounds in false deities; but, this is
> rendered possible only _because they are false_. Two or more true
> Churches involve a contradiction in terms. Such a condition of things
> is as intrinsically absurd, and as unthinkable, as two or more true
> Gods--as well talk of two or more multiplication tables! No! There can
> be but "One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism". If several Churches all
> teach the true doctrine of Christ, unmixed with error, they must all
> agree, and, consequently, be virtually one and the self same. There is
> no help for it; and sound reason will not tolerate any other
> conclusion. The "Branch Theory" stands self-condemned, if truth be of
> any importance: because it is inconsistent with truth. For, if one
> Church contradicts the other on any single point of doctrine, then one
> or the other must be false, that is, it must be either asserting what
> Christ denied; or else denying what Christ asserted. They cannot,
> under any circumstances, be described as _true_ Churches. This is not
> sophistry or subtilty. It is common-sense. Christ promised unity in
> promising truth; since truth is one. Is Christ divided? asks St. Paul.
> No! Then neither is His Church.
> 
> 2. How was His truth to be maintained and securely developed, century
> after century, pure and untainted, and free from all admixture of
> error? _Humanly_ speaking, the thing was impossible. Then what
> _superhuman_ guarantee did He offer? What was to be our security?
> Nothing less than the abiding presence of the Holy Ghost Himself.
> 
> Surely, then, we need not be anxious after that! Listen, and remember
> it is to God you are listening. "The Spirit of Truth shall abide with
> you for ever" (John xiv. 17). Non-Catholics do not seem in the least
> to realise what those words mean, or that it is God Himself who
> promises. But, to continue; what is the purpose of this extraordinary
> and enduring presence? Why is it given? What is it for? Well, for the
> express purpose of hindering divisions and sects. In order to lead,
> not to mislead us. How do we know? Because God said so: "He shall
> guide you into all truth" (John xvi. 13). And this truth, thus
> permanently secured, was to draw all together into one body. In fact,
> we have it on Divine authority, that the Church of Christ was to be as
> truly a single organic whole, in which every part is subject to one
> head, as is a living human body. The similitude is not of man's
> choosing, but is inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself. "As the
> (natural) body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of
> that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.... Now,
> ye are the (mystical) Body[7] of Christ" (1 Cor. xii.).
> 
> What can be clearer, what more explicit? Now, if the Spirit of Truth,
> that is to say, the Holy Ghost, _is really_ with the Church (as God
> promised He always would be), and if He is always present for the
> _express purpose of "guiding her into all truth"_ (as God promised
> would be the case), surely this guidance must be a great reality, and
> not the mere sham that it is everywhere found to be, outside the
> Catholic Church.
> 
> 3. Consciously or unconsciously, Anglicans and other non-Catholics
> have for centuries denied the truth of Our Lord's words and have
> contradicted His clearest statements. In fact, the Church of England,
> in her Book of Homilies, declares that "clergy and laity, learned and
> unlearned, all ages, sects, and degrees of men, women, and children,
> of whole Christendom, were altogether drowned in damnable idolatry by
> the space of 800 years and more"! (Hom. on Peril of Idol., part iii.).
> This is a specimen of the way in which God's promises are set aside,
> and the Bible misinterpreted by outsiders while professing to make it
> the foundation of their creed. Nor was this the teaching of a few
> irresponsible persons. It was enforced by the whole Anglican Church.
> "All parsons, vicars, curates, and all others having spiritual cure,"
> were "straitly enjoined" to read these Homilies Sunday after Sunday
> throughout the year in every church and chapel of the kingdom. And the
> 25th Article declares the second book of Homilies to contain "a godly
> and wholesome doctrine and necessary for these times"! Probably this
> "godly and wholesome doctrine" is no longer obliged to be read and
> taught by Anglicans; probably they no longer consider it either
> "godly" or "wholesome," but quite the reverse. This we are quite ready
> to admit. But, in the name of common prudence, who, in his senses,
> would trust the salvation of his immortal soul to a Church that
> teaches a thing is white in one century and black in the next, and
> never knows its own mind?
> 
> Here then let us put two very pertinent questions, for our
> non-Catholic friends to ponder over, and to answer, if they can.
> First: How is it possible for the Church to go astray, if God the Holy
> Ghost is really guiding? Second: How is it possible for the Church to
> wander away into _error_, if this same Spirit be leading her into _all
> truth_? Will some one kindly explain that, without at the same time
> denying the veracity of God?
> 
> 4. However, granting the absolute truth of Christ's promises, we may
> now proceed to inquire in what way this divine and (because divine)
> infallible guidance into all truth is brought about? Is it by the Holy
> Spirit whispering to each individual priest or to each individual
> Bishop? Emphatically not. Why not? Because, if that theory were well
> founded, then every priest and Bishop would believe and teach
> precisely the same set of doctrines, without any need of an
> infallible Pope to guide him. For, clearly, the Spirit of _Truth_
> could not whisper "yea" to one, and "nay" to another, nor could He
> declare a thing to be "black" to one person and "white" to his
> neighbour. In fine, we have but two alternatives to choose from. We
> must confess either that the promises themselves, so solemnly made,
> are lies (which were blasphemy to affirm), or else, that God directs
> His Church, and safeguards its truth, through its head, or chief
> Pastor; just as we regulate and control the members of the physical
> body through the brain. We must either renounce all belief in Christ
> and His promises, or else admit that His words are actually carried
> out, and that the prayer has been heard which He made for Peter, and
> for those who should, in turn, exercise Peter's office and functions,
> and should speak in his name. Harken to the narrative, as given by St.
> Luke: "The Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have
> you [_observe, the plural number_] that he may sift you as wheat; but
> I have prayed [_not for all, but_] for _thee_, that _thy_ faith fail
> not: and _thou_, being once converted, confirm thy brethren" (Luke
> xxii. 32) [_observe the singular number_, "thee," "thy" and "thou"].
> 
> Peter still lives, in the person of Pope Pius X., and _in virtue of
> that prayer_, and through the omnipotent power of God, Peter still
> "confirms his brethren," and will continue to confirm them in the true
> and pure doctrine of Christ, until the final crack of doom. As the
> venerable Bishop W.B. Ullathorne wrote to Lady Chatterton, soon after
> the Vatican Council, _i.e._, 19th November, 1875: "There is but one
> Church of Christ, with one truth, taught by one authority, received by
> all, believed by all within its pale; or there is no security for
> faith. If we examine Our Lord's words and acts, such a Church there
> is. If we follow the inclinations of our fallen nature, ever averse to
> the control of authority, we there find the reason why so many who
> love this world, receive not the authority that He planted, to endure
> like His primal creation, to the end."
> 
> "It is pleasant to human pride and independence to be a little god,
> having but oneself for an authority, and a light, and a law to
> oneself. But does this or does it not contradict the fact that we are
> dependent beings, and that the Lord, He is God? This spirit of
> independence, with self-sufficiency for its basis, and rebellion for
> its act, is _just what_ Sacred Scripture ascribes to Satan" (p. 230).
> 
> True. And it is just the reverse of the disposition that Christ
> demands from all who wish to enter into His One Fold: for He declares
> with startling clearness that "unless we become as little children"
> (_i.e._, docile, submissive, trustful, etc.) "we shall not enter into
> the Kingdom of heaven," which is His Church.
> 
>        *       *       *       *       *
> 
> 5. Before proceeding further, it may be well here to draw a
> distinction between the Pope, considered as the _supreme_ ruler, and
> the Pope, considered as the _infallible_ ruler. The reigning Pontiff,
> whosoever he may be, is always the Supreme Ruler, the Head of the
> Church, and the Vicar of Christ; but he is not, on all occasions, nor
> under all circumstances, the infallible ruler.
> 
> To guard against any mistake as to the meaning of our words, let us
> explain that infallibility is a gift, but not a gift that the Pope
> exercises every day, nor on every occasion, nor in addressing
> individuals, nor public audiences, nor is it a prerogative that can be
> invoked, except under special and indeed we may certainly add, very
> exceptional circumstances. And further--unlike other powers--it can
> never be delegated to another. The Pope himself is Infallible, but he
> cannot transfer nor communicate his Infallibility, even temporarily or
> for some special given occasion, to anyone else who may, in other
> respects, represent him, such as a Legate, Ambassador, or Nuncio.
> 
> "Neither in conversation," writes the theologian Billuart, "nor in
> discussion, nor in interpreting Scripture or the Fathers, nor in
> consulting, nor in giving his reasons for the point which he has
> defined, nor in answering letters, nor in private deliberations,
> supposing he is setting forth his own opinion, is the Pope
> infallible." He is not infallible as a theologian, or as a priest, or
> a Bishop, or a temporal ruler, or a judge, or a legislator, or in his
> political views, or even in the government of the Church: but only
> when he teaches the Faithful throughout the world, _ex cathedra_, in
> matters of faith or of morals, that is to say, in matters relating to
> revealed truth, or to principles of moral conduct.
> 
> "It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope, or upon his good
> pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic
> definition. He is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to
> the truths which that revelation contains. He is tied up and limited
> by the Creeds, already in existence, and by the preceding definitions
> of the Church. He is tied up and limited by the divine law and by the
> constitution of the Church. Lastly, he is tied up and limited by that
> doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that, alongside religious
> society, there is civil society, that alongside the Ecclesiastical
> Hierarchy, there is the power of temporal magistrates, invested, in
> their own domain, with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe in
> conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and
> belonging to the domain of civil society."[8]
> 
> Further, a definition of divine faith must be drawn from the Apostolic
> deposit of doctrine, in order that it may be considered an exercise of
> infallibility, whether in Pope or Council. Similarly, a precept of
> morals, if it is to be accepted as from an infallible voice, must be
> drawn from the moral law, that primary revelation to us from God. The
> Pope has no power over the Moral Law, except to assert it, to
> interpret it and to enforce it.
> 
> 6. From this, it is at once realised how restricted, after all, is the
> infallible power of the Pope, in spite of the alarm its definition
> excited in the Protestant camp, in 1870.
> 
> Still, it must be clearly understood that whether speaking _ex
> cathedra_ or not, the Pope is always the Vicar of Christ and the
> divinely appointed Head of His Church, and that we, as dutiful
> children, are bound both to listen to him with the utmost attention
> and respect, and to show him ready and heartfelt obedience. Anyone who
> should limit his submission to the Pope's infallible utterances is
> truly a rebel at heart, and no true Catholic.
> 
> The Holy Scripture is far from contemplating the exceptional cases of
> infallible definitions when it lays down the command: "Remember them,
> who have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God,
> whose faith follow". And, "_obey_ them that have the rule over you,
> and _submit_ yourselves, for they watch for your souls, as they that
> must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief".
> The margin in the Protestant Version (observes Cardinal Newman) reads
> "those who are your _guides_," and the word may also be translated
> "leaders". Well, whether as rulers or as guides and leaders, whichever
> word be right, they are to be _obeyed_.
> 
> 7. From this it is evident enough that assent is of two kinds. There
> is firstly the assent of Divine Faith; and secondly there is the
> assent of religious obedience. Neither can be dispensed with. Both are
> binding. All we affirm is that the one is not the other, and that the
> first must not be confused with the last. A special kind of assent,
> that is to say, the _assent of Divine Faith_ must be given to all
> those doctrines which are proposed to us by the infallible voice of
> the Church, as taught by Our Lord or the Apostles, and as contained in
> the original deposit [_fidei Depositum_]. They comprise (_a_) all
> things whatever which God has directly revealed; and (_b_) whatever
> truth such revelation implicitly contains.
> 
> These implicit truths are deduced from the original revelation, very
> much as any other consequence from its premisses. For example. It is a
> truth directly revealed, that the _Holy Ghost is God_. But, since God
> is to be adored: the further proposition:--_the Holy Ghost is to be
> adored_; is also contained, though only implicitly, in revelation;
> and is therefore, equally, of faith. So again; that Christ is man, is
> a fact of revelation; but the further proposition--Christ has a true
> body--though not explicitly stated, is implicitly affirmed in the
> first proposition. All consequences, such as the above, which are seen
> immediately and evidently to be contained in the words of revelation,
> must be accepted as of faith. Other consequences, which are equally
> contained in the original deposit, but which are not so readily
> detected and deduced, _must be explicitly_ accepted as of faith, only
> so soon as the Church has publicly and authoritatively declared them
> to be so contained; but not before. Thus, to take an illustration, the
> Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin is a fact contained from
> the beginning, implicitly locked up, as it were, in the deposit of
> faith, left by the Apostles. Were it not so it never could have been
> defined; for the Church does not invent doctrines. She only transmits
> them. Yet, this doctrine is not so clearly and so self-evidently
> included, and lies not so luminously and unmistakably on the very
> surface of revelation as to be at once perceptible to all. Hence,
> before its actual definition, a Catholic might deny it, or suspend his
> judgment, without censure; whereas, to do either the one or the other,
> after the Church has solemnly declared the doctrine to be contained in
> the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, would be nothing short of
> heresy.
> 
> "The Infallibility, whether of the Church or of the Pope," says
> Cardinal Newman, "acts principally or solely in two channels, (_a_) in
> direct statement of truth, and (_b_) in the condemnation of error. The
> former takes the shape of doctrinal definitions, the latter
> stigmatises propositions as 'heretical,' 'next to heresy,'
> 'erroneous,' and the like" (p. 136).
> 
> The gift of Infallibility, observes Cardinal Manning, "extends
> _directly_ to the whole matter of divine truth, and _indirectly_ to
> all truths which, though not revealed, are in such contact with
> revelation that the deposit of faith and morals cannot be guarded,
> expounded, and defended, without an infallible discernment of such
> unrevealed truths" (_Vatican Decrees_, p. 167).
> 
> 8. To sum up: Persons who refuse to assent to doctrines which they
> know to be directly revealed and defined, or which are universally
> held by the Church as of Catholic Faith, become by that very act
> guilty of heresy, and cut themselves adrift from the mystical Body of
> Christ, and are no longer His members. If, on the other hand, their
> assent is refused only to doctrines closely connected with these
> dogmatic utterances, and which, as such, are proposed for their
> acceptance, they become guilty, if not of actual heresy, then of
> something perilously akin to it, and are, at all events, guilty of
> serious sin.
> 
> We may observe, in conclusion, that the Infallibility of Pontifical
> definitions, as Father Humphrey so pertinently reminds us, does not
> depend upon the reigning Pontiff's possession of any real knowledge of
> ancient Church history or theology, or philosophy or science, but
> _simply_ and solely upon the assistance of God the Holy Ghost,
> guaranteed to him in his exercise of his function of Chief Pastor, in
> feeding with divine doctrine the entire flock of God. Our Anglican
> friends seem penetrated with the utterly false notion of justification
> by scholarship alone; which is as untrue as it is unscriptural.
> Indeed, their justification by scholarship is likely to lead to very
> undesirable and deplorable results.
> 
> In the foregoing chapter we have considered especially the Pope's
> Infallible authority, and the assent and obedience due to it. In our
> next it remains for us to consider the proper attitude of a loyal
> Catholic towards the Sovereign Pontiff as the supreme ruler and
> governor of the Church of God, even when not speaking _ex cathedra_.
> 
> FOOTNOTES:
> 
> [Footnote 7: The word _soma_, observes Mgr. Capel, is never used in
> Greek to express _mere_ association or aggregation (_Catholic_, p.
> 13).]
> 
> [Footnote 8: From a Pastoral of the Swiss Bishops, which _received the
> Pope's approbation_.]
> 
> CHAPTER VI.
> 
> THE POPE'S ORDINARY AUTHORITY.
> 
> 1. When the Holy Father speaks _ex cathedra_, and defines any doctrine
> concerning Faith or Morals, we are bound to receive his teaching with
> the assent of divine faith: and cannot refuse obedience, without being
> guilty of heresy. By one such wilful act of disobedience we cease to
> be members of the Church of God, and must be classed with heathens and
> publicans: "Who will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the
> heathen and the publican" (Matt, xviii. 17).
> 
> But the Holy Father rarely exercises his prerogative of Infallibility,
> and therefore the occasions of these special professions of faith
> occur but seldom--not once, perhaps, during the course of many years.
> 
> 2. What then, it may be asked, is the proper attitude of a Catholic
> towards the Pope, at ordinary times?
> 
> For a proper understanding of the answer, it may be well to remind the
> general reader, that the law of God enjoins obedience to all lawfully
> constituted authority; whether ecclesiastical or civil, and whether
> Infallible or not: further that the Pope, whether speaking _ex
> cathedra_ or not, is always our lawful superior in all matters
> appertaining to religion, not only as regards faith and morals, but
> also as regards ecclesiastical order and discipline. His jurisdiction,
> or authority to command in these matters, is supreme and universal,
> and carries with it a corresponding right to be obeyed. He is the
> immediate and supreme representative of God upon earth; and has been
> placed in that position by God Himself. And since the Primacy is
> neither in whole, nor even in part of human derivation, but comes
> directly and immediately from Christ, no man or number of men, whether
> kings or princes or individual Bishops, nor even a whole Council of
> Bishops, have any warranty or right to command him in religious or
> ecclesiastical concerns.[9] The Council of Florence declares that: "To
> him, in Blessed Peter, was delivered by Our Lord Jesus Christ the full
> power of ruling and governing the Universal Church". Now this "full
> power" accorded by Christ cannot be limited except by the authority of
> Christ. Though the Pope is not the Sovereign of all the faithful in
> the _temporal_ order, he is the Sovereign of all Christians in the
> _spiritual_ order. If then--and this is admitted by all--we are bound
> in conscience to obey our temporal sovereign and magistrates and
> masters, and must submit to the laws of the country, so long as they
> do not conflict with higher and superior laws, such as the Natural Law
> and the Revealed Law, with still greater reason are we bound to obey
> our spiritual Sovereign and the laws and regulations of the Church.
> 
> 3. To object that the Pope may possibly make a mistake when not
> speaking _ex cathedra_ though true, is nothing to the point. For civil
> governments are far more liable to fail in this respect, and as a
> matter of fact, do frequently abuse their power and pass unjust laws,
> and sometimes command what is sinful,[10] yet that fact does not
> militate against the soundness of the _general_ proposition that
> lawful superiors are to be obeyed. Nor does it diminish the force of
> St. Peter's inspired words, in which he bids us be subject, for God's
> sake, "whether it be to the king, as excelling, or to governors as
> sent by him for the punishment of evil doers ... for such is the will
> of God" (Peter ii.). Nor does it detract from the truth and validity
> of St. Paul's still more emphatic words: "Let every soul be subject to
> higher powers; for there is no power but from God: and those that are
> ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, _resisteth the
> ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves
> damnation_" (Rom. xiii.). And again, when writing to Titus he says:
> "Admonish them to be subject to princes and powers, and to obey" (Tit.
> iii. 1).
> 
> If the Apostles themselves thus command obedience to the State, even
> to a pagan Government, such as the Roman was at the time they wrote,
> it will scarcely be denied by any Christian that obedience is due to
> the Church, and to the ecclesiastical government, altogether apart
> from any question of infallibility. In fact, though both the civil
> government and the ecclesiastical government are from God, and though
> each is supreme within its own sphere; yet the authority in the case
> of the Church is directly and immediately from God, whereas in the
> case of the State, it is from God only mediately. This is why the
> form of government, in the case of the State, may vary. It may be at
> one time monarchical, and at another republican, and then oligarchic,
> and so forth, whereas the Church must ever be ruled by one Supreme
> Pontiff, and be monarchical in its form. Further, it is generally held
> that even when not speaking _ex cathedra_, "the Vicar of Christ is
> largely assisted by God in the fulfilment of his sublime office; that
> he receives great light and strength to do well the great work
> entrusted to him and imposed upon him, and that he is continually
> guided from above in the government of the Catholic Church." [Words of
> Father O'Reilly, S.J., quoted with approval by Cardinal Newman, p.
> 140.] And that supplies us with a special and an additional motive for
> prompt obedience.
> 
> "Two powers govern the world," wrote Pope Gelasius, to the Greek
> Emperor Anastasius, more than fourteen hundred years ago, "the
> spiritual authority of the Roman Pontiff, and the temporal power of
> kings". These two powers have for their end, one the spiritual
> happiness of man, here and hereafter, the other the temporal
> prosperity of society in the present world. So that, we may say,
> speaking generally, the Roman Pontiff has, in spiritual and
> ecclesiastical matters, the same authority that secular sovereigns and
> their Parliaments have in worldly and political matters. They command
> and issue laws not only as regards what is _necessary_ for the welfare
> of their subjects, but also as regards whatever is lawful and
> expedient. It is not contended that they never make a mistake. It is
> not asserted that their ruling is necessarily, and in every
> particular, always wise and discreet, but even inexpedient orders, if
> not unjust, may be valid and binding, even though they might have been
> better non-issued. The principle to guide us is of practical
> simplicity. As regards both the Church and the State--each in its own
> order--the rule is that obedience is to be yielded. And, in doubtful
> cases the presumption is in favour of authority. If anything were
> ordered, which is _clearly seen_ to be contrary to, or incompatible
> with the Law of God, whether natural or revealed, then, of course, it
> would possess no binding force, for the Apostle warns us that--"We
> must obey God, rather than man"--but, so long as we remain in a state
> of uncertainty, we are bound to give a properly constituted authority
> the benefit of the doubt--and submit.
> 
> 4. With these preliminary explanations and considerations to guide us
> in our interpretation, we will now give the solemn teaching on the
> subject, as laid down in the third chapter of the _Pastor AEternus_,
> drawn up and duly promulgated by the Ecumenical Council of the
> Vatican; and therefore of supreme authority.
> 
> "We teach and declare that the Roman Church, according to the
> disposition of the Lord, obtains the princedom of ordinary power over
> all the other Churches; and that this, the Roman Pontiff's power of
> jurisdiction, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; towards which
> (power) all the pastors and faithful, of whatever right and dignity,
> whether each separately or all collectively, are bound by the duty of
> hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in the things
> which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to
> the _discipline and government_ (_regimen_) of the Church diffused
> through the whole world; so that, unity being preserved with the Roman
> Pontiff, as well of communion as of the profession of the same faith,
> the Church of Christ may be one flock under one pastor. This is the
> doctrine of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss
> of faith and salvation."
> 
> "We also teach and declare that the Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge
> of the faithful, and that in all causes belonging to ecclesiastical
> examination recourse can be had to his judgment: and that the judgment
> of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is none greater, is
> not to be called in question, nor is it lawful for any one to judge
> its judgment. Therefore, those wander from the right path of truth who
> affirm that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman
> Pontiffs to an Ecumenical Council, as to an authority superior to the
> Roman Pontiff."
> 
> "If any one, therefore, shall say that the Roman Pontiff has only the
> office of inspection or direction, but not full and supreme power of
> jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not only in the things which
> pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the
> discipline and government of the Church diffused throughout the whole
> world, or that he has only the principal place (_potiores partes_),
> and not the whole plenitude of the supreme power, or that this, his
> power, is not ordinary and immediate, whether over all and each of the
> Churches, or over all and each of the pastors and faithful, let him be
> anathema!"
> 
> 5. Since the Church is a perfect society, spread throughout the entire
> world, with one supreme ruler at its head, it follows that it must be
> endowed with all the means requisite for the carrying out of its
> mission. Christ was sent, by His Eternal Father, from Heaven with full
> powers. "All power is given me in heaven and in earth"; and these
> powers He handed on to His Church. "As the Father hath sent Me, so I
> also send you" (John xx. 21). Hence the Popes are, to use Scriptural
> phraseology, "ambassadors for Christ; God, as it were, exhorting by
> them" (2 Cor. v. 20); and no Catholic dare contest their power or
> jurisdiction.
> 
> Indeed, it would have been hopelessly impossible to carry on the
> government of the Church and to maintain unity amongst its
> ever-increasing numbers, if there were no supreme authority ready to
> assert itself; to correct errors; to resist abuses; and to restrain
> those who might introduce dissensions and differences. Of this fact,
> the present deplorable chaotic state of the Anglican and other
> non-Catholic Churches offers us abundant and forcible illustrations.
> From the very first the One True Church has not only taught, but
> ruled; not only spoken, but acted. And when any of her subjects have
> proved obstreperous and disobedient, and stubborn in their resistance
> to her orders, she has invariably turned them out of her fold, so that
> they should not infect and contaminate the good and the loyal. It was
> in this sense that St. Paul, the inspired Apostle, in the very first
> century of the Christian era, instructed Titus to construe and
> administer the law committed to his charge. After warning Titus that
> there are "many vain talkers and deceivers," St. Paul commands him "to
> rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in faith". He adds
> further: "These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke, _with all
> authority_". But this was not all. He was not only to decide who were
> the "vain talkers and deceivers". Nor was he simply "to exhort and
> rebuke them sharply, and with all authority," that they might become
> "sound in the faith," but if they persisted after the first and second
> admonition, he was also to reject them, and thrust them out of the
> Church, as heretics. "Reject a heretic, after the first and second
> admonition" (Tit. iii. 10). Now Titus was neither an Apostle nor a
> Pope, but a simple Bishop. If then such were the powers invested in
> him, how much more fully still must this authority be inherent in the
> Vicar of Christ himself, who is the supreme head upon earth of the
> entire Church of God.
> 
> It is this prompt amputation of the diseased members, before the
> hideous canker has time to spread, that has kept the Church of God
> pure to this day, while heretical bodies have fallen into greater and
> greater spiritual decay. It is because she fearlessly and resolutely
> insists upon all her children accepting the truth, the whole truth,
> and nothing but the truth, that she presents to the world, century
> after century, with miraculous clearness and perspicuity, the Divine
> hall-mark of unity.
> 
> 6. Outside the true Church of God there is no recognised voice strong
> enough to enforce any uniformity of belief. Though the Pope's
> authority was acknowledged throughout England for over one thousand
> years, yet at the time of the so-called Reformation, that Voice of
> God, speaking through Peter, was admitted no longer. Hence, as
> Cardinal Manning most truly observes: "The old forms of religious
> thought are now passing away in England. The rejection of the Divine
> Voice has let in the flood of opinion; and opinion has generated
> scepticism; and scepticism has brought on contentions without end.
> What seemed so solid once, is disintegrated. It is dissolving by the
> internal action of the principle from which it sprung. The critical
> unbelief of dogma has now reached to the foundation of Christianity,
> and to the veracity of Scripture. Such is the world the Catholic
> Church Sees before it at this day. The Anglicanism of the Reformation
> is _upon the rocks_, like some tall ship stranded upon the shore, and
> going to pieces, by its own weight and the steady action of the sea.
> We have no need of playing the wreckers. It would be inhumanity to do
> so. God knows that the desires and prayers of Catholics are ever
> ascending that all that remains of Christianity in England may be
> preserved, unfolded and perfected into the whole circle of revealed
> truths, and the unmutilated revelation of the Faith.
> 
> "It is inevitable that if we speak plainly we must give pain and
> offence to those who will not admit the possibility that they are out
> of the Faith and the Church of Jesus Christ. But, if we do not speak
> plainly, woe unto us, for we shall betray our trust and our Master.
> There is a day coming, when they who have softened down the truth, or
> have been silent, will have to give account. I had rather be thought
> harsh than be conscious of hiding the light which has been mercifully
> shown to me" (_Temp. Mission_, etc., p. 215).
> 
> It would be well if all Catholics took to heart these noble words of
> the great English Cardinal, who was himself once an Archdeacon in the
> Anglican Church. Real charity urges us to set forth the truth in all
> its nakedness and beauty. This must be done, even though it may
> sometimes give pain and cause irritation. If a man be walking in a
> trance towards the crumbling edge of some ghastly precipice, who--let
> me ask--acts with the greater charity, he who is afraid to interfere,
> and will calmly allow the somnambulist to walk on, till he fall over
> into the abyss; or he who will shout, and, if need be, roughly shake
> him from his fatal sleep, and so, perhaps, save him from destruction?
> Surely, to allow a fellow-creature to follow a path of extreme danger,
> for fear of wounding his susceptibilities and incurring his anger, by
> candidly pointing out his peril, is the mark, not of a lover of his
> brethren, but rather of one who loves himself alone.
> 
> We will conclude with the warning of God, given through the inspired
> writer Ezekiel, the application of which, _positis ponendis_, is
> sufficiently plain: "When I say unto the wicked, Thou shall surely
> die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked
> from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die
> in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at thy hand. Yet _if
> thou warn the wicked_, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from
> his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity, but _thou hast delivered
> thy soul_" (Ezek. iii. 18).
> 
> _P.S._--Among the authors quoted in THE PURPOSE OF THE PAPACY may be
> mentioned the following, as being easily obtainable by English
> readers: Allnatt, Allies, Bonomelli, Capel, Castelplano, Dering,
> Deviver, Franzelin, Humphrey, Manning, Merry del Val, Meyer, Minges,
> Newman, O'Reilly, Rhodes, Ullathorne, Ward.
> 
> FOOTNOTES:
> 
> [Footnote 9: "Da chi dipendera il Pontefice nell' esercizio del suo
> potere Spirituale? Dai Re? Eccovi il gallicanismo parlamentare! Dalle
> masse dei fedeli? Eccovi il richerianismo, e febronianismo! Dai
> Vescovi? Eccovi il gallicanismo teologico" (_L. di Castelplanio_, p.
> 104).]
> 
> [Footnote 10: Take for instance, 37 Henry VIII. Chap. 17, which
> recites that "the clergy have no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, but by
> and under the King, who is the _only Supreme Head of the Church_ of
> England, to whom _all_ authority and power is _wholly_ given to hear
> and determine all causes ecclesiastical."]
> 
> PART II.
> 
> THE ANGLICAN THEORY OF CONTINUITY IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
> OR
> THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE IN ENGLAND IN PRE-REFORMATION TIMES.
> 
>    As the First Part of this little treatise is devoted to a
>    consideration of the position of the Pope and the authority
>    which he exercises throughout the Universal Church; so the
>    Second Part is concerned with the position occupied and the
>    authority exercised by the same Sovereign Pontiff in our own
>    country of England, before she was cut off from the
>    Universal Church in the sixteenth century.
> 
> CHAPTER I.
> 
> THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORMATION.
> 
> One of the greatest glories of the Catholic Church is that she and she
> alone possesses and is able to communicate to others the whole truth
> revealed by Jesus Christ. The Church of England and other Churches
> that have gone out from her have, we are thankful to say, carried with
> them some fragments of Christianity, but the Catholic Church alone
> possesses the whole unadulterated revelation of Jesus Christ. For over
> a thousand years, the Church in England formed a part of the great
> Universal Church, the centre of which is at Rome and the circumference
> of which is everywhere. From the sixth to the sixteenth century the
> Church in England was a province of that Church, and received her
> power and jurisdiction from the Holy See. It was not until the
> sixteenth century that she apostatised, and was cut off from the stem,
> out of which she had sprung, as a rotten branch is lopped off from a
> healthy tree. It was not until then that she became a Church apart,
> distinct from the Church of God, no longer the _Catholic_ Church _in_
> England, but henceforth the _National_ Church _of_ England and of
> England alone. The pre-"Reformation" Church was, as we have said, not
> a separate Church, but a part of the one Catholic Church, whereas the
> post-"Reformation" Church stands alone, unrecognised by the rest of
> Christendom; hence the one is absolutely distinct from the other. The
> grand old cathedrals and churches designed, built, and paid for by our
> Catholic ancestors have been forcibly taken possession of, but the
> Faith, the teaching, and the doctrine--in a word, the Church
> itself--is totally distinct. The wolf may slay and devour the sheep
> and may then clothe himself in its fleece, but the wolf is not the
> sheep, and the nature of the one remains totally different from that
> of the other. The proofs of all this are so numerous and so striking
> that one scarcely knows which to choose, nor where to begin. In the
> present chapter, we will content ourselves with calling attention to
> certain points that every one will be able to grasp. It is said that a
> straw will show which way the wind blows, so things even trivial in
> themselves will enable any unprejudiced man to see that there must be
> some radical difference between the Church in England four hundred
> years ago, and the Church of England to-day. First, let us just look
> round and consider the Catholic Church. It is spread all over the
> world. It is found in France, in Belgium, in Italy, in Spain, and in
> other countries, all of which recognised the Church in England before
> the "Reformation" as one in faith and doctrine with themselves. They
> felt themselves united with it in one and the same belief; they taught
> the same seven Sacraments; they gathered around the same Sacrifice;
> they acknowledged the same supremacy of the same spiritual head. Now
> there is no single Catholic country that recognises the Church of
> England as anything but heretical and schismatical.
> 
> Formerly when any Archbishop of Canterbury travelled abroad he was
> received as a brother by the Catholic Bishops all over the Continent.
> He felt thoroughly at home in the Catholic churches, and offered up
> the Divine Mysteries at their altars, using the same sacred vessels,
> reading from the same missal, speaking the same language, and feeling
> himself to be a member of the same spiritual family. Can the present
> Archbishop of Canterbury follow their example? Would the Cardinal
> Archbishop of Paris, for instance, or the Archbishop of Milan receive
> the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, as a brother Bishop? Would they
> cause their cathedrals to be thrown open to him? No.
> 
> In vain does the Archbishop of Canterbury of to-day claim continuity
> with the pre-"Reformation" Archbishops. For no one would be found to
> admit such a claim. It may be said that this is of no great
> importance. It may not be in itself, but it is the straw which shows
> the way the wind blows; and clearly proves that the verdict of the
> entire world and the chief centres of Christendom is against
> continuity.
> 
> Let us take another "straw". Before the pseudo-Reformation there were
> Cardinals exercising authority in the Church in England. Some of them
> even became famous. There was, for instance, Cardinal Stephen Langton,
> who was Primate of England, and who brought together the Barons, and
> forced the Great Charter from King John. There, amongst the signatures
> to that famous document we find the name of a Roman Cardinal. From the
> time of Stephen Langton to the time of Cardinal Fisher in the
> sixteenth century there was a long succession of Cardinals in England,
> all of whom were members of the Church in England. From the time of
> Cardinal Robert Pullen to that of Cardinal John Fisher there were no
> fewer than twenty-two Roman Cardinals belonging to that Church. How is
> it that during those thousand years the English Church could have and
> actually did have Cardinals, up to the time of the so-called
> Reformation, but never since? How is it that such a thing has ceased
> to be possible? Clearly because it is no longer the same Church.
> Before, England was a part of the Universal Church; and just as the
> Church in Italy, France, and Spain, had, and still have, their
> Cardinals, so England also was given its share of representation in
> the Sacred College. We shall realise the inference to be drawn if we
> consider what a Cardinal is. In the first place, he is one chosen
> directly by the Pope; secondly, he is one of the Pope's advisers;
> thirdly, when the Holy Father dies it is he, as a member of the Sacred
> College, who has to elect a successor; furthermore, he swears
> allegiance to the Sovereign Pontiff, and on bended knee, with his
> hands on the Holy Gospels, he solemnly declares his adhesion to the
> Roman Catholic Faith. No Anglican of the present day, no Protestant,
> no one who is not an out-and-out Roman Catholic can be, or could ever
> have been, a Cardinal, yet there were Cardinals here in the Church in
> England, and, as we have stated, a long succession of them right up to
> the time of the pseudo-Reformation. How can there be continuity and
> spiritual identity between the Church _in_ England, which before that
> change could and did have Cardinals, and the Church _of_ England
> to-day, which can produce nothing of the kind? Cardinals or no
> Cardinals is not a matter of great importance in itself, but it is
> another "straw" which clearly shows the completely altered condition
> of things. Let us pass to another point. During the period between the
> sixth and sixteenth centuries there were many canonised saints in the
> Church in England. I refer to such men as St. Bede, who lived in the
> eighth century; to St. Odo of Canterbury; to St. Dunstan, Archbishop
> of Canterbury, in the tenth century; to St. Wolstan of Worcester; to
> St. Osmond, Bishop of Salisbury in the eleventh century; to St. Thomas
> a Becket, in the twelfth century; to St. Richard, Bishop of
> Chichester and St. Edmund, in the thirteenth century; and to many
> others we could mention, whose names are enrolled in the lists of the
> Catholic Church, and who are set up before her children as models of
> virtue, as the most perfect specimens of sanctity, and as worthy of
> our imitation--all members of the Church in England before the
> pseudo-Reformation.[11] How is it that the present Church of England
> has never canonised any saint? Those to whom I have referred represent
> the best and truest of the Church in England before the "Reformation".
> We still show them reverence. In many cases we even recite their
> offices and Masses. How, then, can they be members of the same Church
> as the Church of England of to-day, which we know to be a schismatical
> body, cut off from the unity of Christendom some four hundred years
> ago? There has been no saint canonised according to the rite of the
> Church of England, but if there had been, we would not and could not
> reverence them, for they would be to us outside the Church--aliens,
> heretics, and, from that point of view at all events, unworthy of
> imitation. Let us point out yet another "straw" which clearly
> indicates the essential difference between the Church in England
> before the "Reformation" and the Church of England after it. When the
> young King Henry VIII. first came to the throne he, like all his
> predecessors, both kings and queens, was a true Roman Catholic. So
> much so, that when a doctrine of the Church was attacked he wrote a
> book in its defence; in fact, the Pope was so pleased with his zeal
> that he determined to reward him by conferring on him the title of
> "Defender of the Faith". But, in the name of common-sense! Defender of
> what Faith? Was it the Protestant faith? Was it the faith professed by
> the present Church of England? Is it likely, is it possible, that any
> Pope would confer such a title on any one who was not in union with
> the Holy See, and who rejected Catholic doctrine? Such a thing is
> unthinkable. Was the faith of Henry VIII. before the break with Rome
> the same as that of Edward VII. who on his coronation day declared the
> Mass to be false, Transubstantiation to be absurd, and Catholics to be
> idolaters? If not, then what becomes of the continuity theory? The
> fact is that between the Church in England before the sixteenth
> century and the Church of England to-day there is no real connection,
> no true resemblance, and those who endeavour to prove the contrary are
> but falsifying history and throwing dust into the eyes of simple
> people, and trying to prove what is absolutely and wholly untrue.
> 
> FOOTNOTES:
> 
> [Footnote 11: As early as 1170 Pope Alexander III. decreed that the
> consent of the Roman Church was necessary before public honour as a
> saint could be given to any person. Is it conceivable that such
> consent would be given by any Pope in the case of one not united to
> Rome in the same faith?]
> 
> CHAPTER II.
> 
> THE OATH OF OBEDIENCE.
> 
> In order to realise the absolute absurdity of the continuity theory,
> and to see how thoroughly Roman Catholic England was right up to the
> "Reformation," it is enough for us to turn back the hands of the great
> clock of time some few hundred years, and to visit England at any
> period during the long interval between the sixth and the sixteenth
> century.
> 
> One of the first facts that would strike any observant visitor to our
> shores in those days, would be the attitude of the Church in England
> towards the Holy See. Every Archbishop, every metropolitan from the
> time of St. Augustine himself, A.D. 601, up to the sixteenth
> century, not merely acknowledged the authority of the Pope, but
> solemnly swore to show him reverence and obedience. Furthermore, even
> when an Archbishop had been appointed and consecrated, he could not
> exercise jurisdiction until he had received the sacred pallium, which
> came from Rome, and was received as the symbol and token of the
> authority conferred on him by the supreme Pastor. The pallium itself,
> "taken from the body of Blessed Peter," is a band of lamb's wool, and
> was worn by each Archbishop as the pledge of unity and of orthodoxy,
> as well as the fetter of loving subjection to the Supreme Pastor of
> the One Fold, the "apostolic yoke" of Catholic obedience.
> 
> In the early Saxon times, long before trains or steamers had been
> invented, we find Primate after Primate of All England undertaking the
> long and perilous journey over the sea, and then across the Continent
> of Europe, and over the precipitous and dangerous passes of the Alps,
> down through the sunny and vine-clad slopes of Italy, in order to
> receive the pallium in person from the venerable successor of St.
> Peter, in the great Basilica in Rome. But, whether they actually went
> for it themselves in person, or whether special messengers were sent
> with it from Rome to England, they always awaited its reception before
> they considered themselves fully empowered to exercise their
> metropolitan functions. By way of illustration, it may be interesting
> to consider some special case, and we will then leave the reader to
> judge whether we are dealing with an England that is _Catholic_ or an
> England that is _Protestant_; with an England united to the Holy See
> and to the rest of Catholic Europe, or an England independent of the
> Holy See, isolated, and established by Law and Parliament, as it is
> to-day--an England in possession of the truth, which is universal and
> the same everywhere, or an England clinging to error, which is local,
> national and circumscribed.
> 
> It does not much matter what name we select; any will answer our
> purpose. Let us then take Simon Langham, as good and honest an English
> name as ever there was. It is the year 1366, some two hundred years
> before the Church in England cut itself off from the rest of
> Christendom. The metropolitan See of Canterbury is vacant. The
> widowed Diocese seeks, at the hands of the Pope, Urban V., a new
> Archbishop. After mature inquiry and consideration the Pope selects
> Simon Langham. And who is he? Who is this distinguished man, now
> called to rule over that portion of the one Catholic Church
> represented by England? If we study his history we shall find that he
> in no way resembles the typical amiable Anglican Canon of the present
> day, with a wife and children, living within the Cathedral close, but
> that he is a simple, austere, Benedictine monk. He has been living for
> some time past in the famous Abbey of Westminster. He was first a
> simple monk, then he was chosen Prior, and finally Lord Abbot. Some
> years later, _i.e._, in 1362, he was appointed to the vacant See of
> Ely. By whom? Well, in those days the Church was not a mere department
> of the State, so it was not by the Crown. No: nor by the Prime
> Minister, as in the Anglican Church of to-day. But, as history
> records, by a special Papal Bull. Thus, at the time we are now
> considering, _viz._, 1366, he had been Bishop just four years. Now,
> the Primatial throne of St. Augustine, as already stated, has become
> vacant, and Simon Langham, the Bishop of Ely, is appointed Archbishop
> of Canterbury, and Lord Primate of England.
> 
> As with all the other Archbishops before the "Reformation," he cannot
> exercise his metropolitan powers till he has received from Rome the
> insignia of his office, _viz._, the sacred pallium. On this occasion
> the Archbishop does not go himself to Italy, to receive it from the
> hands of the Sovereign Pontiff, but it is brought by special
> messengers from Rome to England.
> 
> We may well imagine the interest these visitors from the Eternal City
> would excite among the population of London. Their dark complexion and
> bright, black eyes, and foreign appearance would, no doubt, attract
> considerable attention. Of course they would be made welcome and be
> shown the chief sights of the city. They would greatly admire, for
> instance, the beauty of Westminster Abbey, and would probably ask its
> history. Then they would be told how it originated with St. Edward the
> Confessor. How he had made a vow to go on a pilgrimage to the tomb of
> the Apostles at Rome, like a loyal Catholic, in order to pay homage to
> the successor of St. Peter, whom Christ appointed as head of the
> Church; how the pious King, finding his kingdom in danger of invasion,
> and his authority threatened, and not daring to absent himself, begged
> the Pope to release him from his vow; how the Pope at once commuted
> it, and bade him build a church instead, in honour of St. Peter; and
> so forth. Then they would very likely visit the inmates of the Abbey.
> The Benedictine monks who served the Abbey would entertain them, and
> ask after their brethren in Italy. Some of these English monks would
> in all likelihood have been educated at Subiaco, where St. Benedict
> first lived, or at Monte Cassino, where he died, and where his body
> still lies. In any case, these English monks were undoubtedly true
> children of St. Benedict, and followed his rule, and were animated by
> his spirit, and rejoiced to acknowledge him as their founder and
> spiritual father. There was nothing of the modern Anglican, and
> nothing insular about them!
> 
> In the meantime the great day arrives. It is the 4th of November in
> the year 1366. The bells of the Abbey are ringing a merry peal. The
> Faithful are flocking in to witness the Archbishop receive the
> Pallium, the symbol of jurisdiction, and the sign that all spiritual
> authority emanates from St. Peter, who alone has received the keys,
> and from his rightful successors in the Petrine See of Rome.
> 
> It is a grand ceremony, and we have even to-day, in the old Latin
> records, a full account of what took place. Anything more truly Roman
> Catholic, or less like the Anglican Church of the "Reformation," it
> would be difficult to imagine.
> 
> It was directed by the rubrics, that the Cathedral clergy should be
> called together, at an early hour, and that Prime and the rest of the
> Divine Office should be recited, up to the High Mass. Then the
> cross-bearers and torch-bearers and thurifers, and the attendants
> carrying the Book of the Gospels and other articles of the sanctuary,
> are drawn up in processional order in the chancel. Two and two,
> followed by priests and other ecclesiastical dignitaries, they walk
> down the nave. Then comes the Archbishop himself, robed in full
> pontificals, though, out of respect to the Pallium, with bare feet.
> The rubric on this point is explicit, _viz._, "nudis pedibus". Behind
> the Archbishop come the Prior and the monks wearing copes. In this
> order they all pass through the streets of London to the gate of the
> city to meet the Papal Commissioner who bears the Pallium. He is
> dressed in an alb and choir-cope, and solemnly carries the Pallium
> enclosed in a costly vessel either of gold or of silver. As soon as
> the procession meets the Pallium-bearer it turns round, and those who
> issued forth retrace their steps towards the Abbey. Last but one walks
> the Archbishop, and last of all follows the bearer of the Pallium. On
> reaching the church the Pallium is reverently laid on the high altar.
> The Archbishop then remains, for some minutes, prostrate in prayer
> before the high altar. Then the choir having finished their singing,
> the Archbishop rises, and turning to the assembled multitude, gives
> them his blessing. He then approaches the altar, and with his hands
> upon the holy Gospels, takes the following solemn oath.
> 
> Now, gentle reader, we are anxious that you should pay particular
> attention to the words of this oath. They may be found in Wilkins'
> _Concilia_ (vol. ii., p. 199), in the original Latin, just as they
> were uttered by Simon Langham, and other Archbishops, in old Catholic
> days. We give them translated into English. And, as you read them, ask
> yourselves whether the Archbishops who uttered them were genuine Roman
> Catholics, or merely Parliamentary Bishops of the local and national
> variety, belonging to the present English Establishment.
> 
> We take our stand in spirit in Westminster Abbey, on the 4th day of
> November, 1366, and, in common with the rest of the vast congregation
> which fills every available space, we listen to the newly elected
> Archbishop, as in clear, ringing words, with his hands on the Gospels,
> he swears as follow:--
> 
> "I, Simon Langham, Archbishop of Canterbury, will be from this hour
> henceforth faithful and obedient to St. Peter, and to the Holy
> Apostolic Roman Church, and to my Lord the Pope, Urban V., and to his
> canonical successors."
> 
> Surely, some of us would open our eyes pretty wide if we saw the
> present Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury with his hands on the
> Gospels taking that oath. Yet we are assured, _ad nauseam_, that the
> Church to which Simon Cardinal Langham belonged is the same as the
> present Church of England, which repudiates the authority of the Pope
> altogether. The same? Well, yes; if light and darkness, and sweetness
> and bitterness, are the same. But let us read the whole of the oath:
> "I, Simon Langham, will be from this hour henceforth faithful and
> obedient to St. Peter, and to the Holy Apostolic Roman Church, and to
> my Lord the Pope, Urban V., and to his canonical successors. Neither
> in counsel or consent or in deed, will I take part in aught by which
> they might suffer loss of life, or limb, or liberty. Their counsel
> which they may confide to me, whether by their envoys or their letter,
> I will, to their injury, wittingly disclose to no man. The Roman
> Papacy and the royalty of St. Peter, I will be their helper to defend
> and to maintain, saving my order, against all men. When summoned to a
> Synod I will come, unless hindered by a canonical impediment. The
> Legate of the Apostolic See I will treat honourably in his coming and
> going, and will help him in his needs. Every third year I will visit
> the threshold of the Apostles, either personally or by proxy, unless I
> am dispensed by Apostolic licence. The possessions which pertain to
> the support of my Archbishopric, I will not sell, nor give away, nor
> pledge, nor re-enfeoff, nor alienate in any way, without first
> consulting the Roman Pontiff. So help me, God, and these God's Holy
> Gospels."
> 
> If you, who read these lines, had stood by, and listened to this oath,
> would it leave any doubt in your minds as to the religion of the
> Archbishop? Could you possibly mistake it for the religion of the
> present Church of England?
> 
> Was the present Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury chosen and appointed
> by the Pope? Did he take a vow of celibacy? Does the present
> Archbishop acknowledge publicly and officially that he receives his
> jurisdiction from the Pope? Did he receive the Pallium from Rome, sent
> by special Papal messengers? Did he stand up and swear on the Gospels
> that he would be faithful and obedient to his Lord the Pope? Did he
> promise to visit Rome every three years, to give his Lord the Pope an
> account of his diocese? Nothing of the kind. Yet we are gravely told
> that there is no break between the Church of St. Anselm, and Simon
> Langham, and of Cardinal Fisher, on the one hand, and the Church of
> the present Archbishop of Canterbury on the other!
> 
> Why are these good men so exceedingly anxious to prove that black is
> white? Why will they assert and re-assert, in every mood and tense,
> that things most opposite are identical, and things most unlike are
> exactly the same?
> 
> We will deal with that question in the next chapter. All we now affirm
> is that the reason is abundantly clear and evident, though little
> creditable to these perverters of history.
> 
> CHAPTER III.
> 
> THE AWKWARD DILEMMA.
> 
> In the whole catalogue of sin, there is hardly one so detestable in
> itself, or so withering in its effects, as the sin of heresy.
> Consequently, though we feel a great love as well as a great interest
> in the Church in England during the thousand years in which she formed
> a part of the Church of God, we can have little love for the present
> Church of England, as by law established, cut off, as she is, from the
> only true Church, which Christ, the Incarnate God, was pleased in His
> infinite wisdom to build upon St. Peter, and upon those who should
> succeed him in his sublime office, and who have received the Divine
> Commission to rule over the entire flock, to hold the keys of the
> kingdom of heaven, and to confirm their brethren to the end of time.
> 
> Besides, a careful study of the origin and genesis of the present
> Anglican Establishment is scarcely calculated to predispose any one
> particularly in its favour. It is not Catholics only who might be
> thought biased upon such a point, but others also who feel this. In
> fact, it is precisely impartial men, unaffected by any interest either
> way, who most fully realise from what a very shady beginning the new
> state of things arose. As Sir Osborne Morgan puts it, "Every student
> of English history knows that, if a very bad king had not fallen in
> love with a very pretty woman, and desired to get divorced from his
> plain and elderly wife, and if he had not compelled a servile
> Parliament to carry out his wishes, there would, in all human
> probability, never have been an Established Church at all."
> 
> This gentleman is a Protestant, and the son of a Protestant clergyman,
> so we may be quite sure that he harbours no special leanings towards
> us, yet he speaks impartially as one who has not only read history,
> but read it without coloured spectacles. Perhaps Lord Macaulay puts
> the case as bluntly as any one, and we may as well quote him because
> he, too, was no Catholic, and held no brief for the Church of Rome.
> This brilliant writer, who was, perhaps, an historian before all
> things, tells us that the work of the Reformation was the work, not of
> three saints, nor even of three ordinary decent men, but of three
> notorious murderers! These are not our words, but Macaulay's, and it
> is not our fault if this is his reading of history. We merely summon
> him as a Protestant witness. He calmly and deliberately states that
> the Reformation was "begun by Henry VIII., the murderer of his wives;
> was continued by Somerset, the murderer of his brother; and was
> completed by Elizabeth, the murderer of her guest". Not a very
> auspicious beginning, it must be confessed, and scarcely suggestive of
> the Divine afflatus. Those who planted the Catholic Church used no
> violence, and did not inflict death. No! on the contrary, they endured
> death, and their blood became the seed of the Church. And that is
> quite another story. In former days every one admitted the present
> Anglican Church to be the child of the Reformation. It was, to quote
> the Protestant historian, Child, "as completely the creation of Henry
> VIII., Edward's Council, and Elizabeth as Saxon Protestantism was of
> Luther." But now? Oh! now, "nous avons change tout cela," and history
> has received a totally different setting. A certain section of
> Anglicans, in these modern times, are labouring hard to persuade
> themselves and others that they can trace their Church back to the
> time of St. Augustine. They will by no means allow that they started
> into being only in the sixteenth century. In fact, it is quite
> pathetic to watch the strenuous efforts they make, and the extravagant
> means to which they have recourse, in order to lull themselves into
> the peaceful enjoyment of so sweet and consoling a delusion.
> 
> A delusion which a candid study of past history must sooner or later
> ruthlessly dispel, and which has not a shred of foundation in fact to
> support it. But we promised to point out WHY, in spite of
> its absolute absurdity, these good men, like the Bishop of London,
> persist in repeating and restating with ever-increasing vehemence that
> there has been no break in the continuity, and that the present Church
> of England is one with the Church of St. Bede, of St. Dunstan, of St.
> Anselm, of St. Thomas, and of other pre-Reformation heroes; though
> they must surely know that there is not one amongst these glorious old
> Catholic saints who would not a thousand times sooner have gone to the
> stake and been burnt alive, than have accepted the Thirty-nine
> Articles, or than have joined the present Bishop of London in any of
> his religious services. Why do Anglicans make such heroic efforts to
> connect their Church with the past? Why do they advance an impossible
> theory? Why will they stubbornly affirm what history utterly denies?
> Why do they assert, and with such emphasis, what no one but they
> themselves have the hardihood to believe? Why? For precisely the same
> reason that will induce a drowning man to grasp at a straw. In short,
> because even if they did not realise it before, they are now
> beginning to see that their very position depends upon their being
> able to make out some sort of case for continuity. They realise that
> to admit that the Church of England began in the sixteenth century is
> simply to cut the ground from underneath their feet. Therefore, purely
> in self-defence, they feel themselves constrained to cling to the
> continuity theory. It may be absurd, it may be unhistorical, it may be
> impossible and utterly repudiated by every impartial and honest man.
> That cannot be helped. Impossible or not impossible; true or false, it
> is necessary for their very existence, so that, just as a drowning man
> catches at a straw, though it cannot possibly support him, so do these
> most unfortunate and hardly-pressed men clutch at and cling to the
> hollow theory of continuity. Sometimes, when off their guard, and in a
> less cautious mood, they will confess as much themselves. And what is
> more, we can provide our readers with an instance of such a
> confession. Many will well remember a well-known and distinguished
> Anglican divine, named Canon Malcolm MacColl. He died a few years ago,
> and we do not wish to say anything against him. Well, he wrote to _The
> Spectator_ in 1900. His letter may be seen in the issue of 22nd
> December for that year. In the course of this letter he makes the
> following admission: he declares that "to concede that the Church of
> England starts from the reign of Henry VIII. or Elizabeth is to
> surrender the whole ground of controversy with Rome. A Church," he
> continues, "which cannot trace its origin beyond the sixteenth century
> is obviously not the Church which Christ founded."
> 
> The late Anglican Canon MacColl is, of course, perfectly right, and
> his inference is strictly logical. A Church, however highly
> respectable and however richly endowed, which came into existence only
> 1,500 years after Christ, came into existence just 1,500 years too
> late, and cannot by any intellectual manoeuvring or stretching of the
> imagination be identified with the one Church established by Christ
> 1,500 years earlier. Consequently every member of the Anglican
> community finds himself, _nolens volens_, impaled on the horns of a
> truly frightful dilemma. For either he must frankly confess that his
> Church is not the Church of God, _i.e._, not the True Church, which
> (human nature being what it is) he can hardly be expected to do; or
> else he must assert that it goes back without any real break to the
> time of the Apostles; which though absolutely untrue, is the only
> other alternative. In a word, he finds himself in a very tight corner.
> He knows, unless he is able to persuade himself of the truth of
> continuity, the very ground of his faith must slip from under his
> feet, and that he must give up pretending to be a member of Christ's
> mystical body altogether.
> 
> No wonder there is consternation in the Anglican camp. No wonder that
> sermons are preached, and history is re-edited and facts suppressed,
> and pamphlets are circulated to prove that black is white and that
> bitterness is sweet, and that false is true. No wonder there are shows
> and pageants and other attempts to prove the thing that is not. Poor
> deluded mortals! It is really pitiable to witness such straining and
> such pulling at the cords; as though truth--solid, imperturbable,
> eternal truth--could ever be dislodged or forced out of existence! No!
> They may disguise the truth for a time, they may hide it for a brief
> period; just as a child, with a box of matches and a handful of straw,
> may, for awhile, hide the eternal stars. But as the stars are still
> there, and will appear again when the smoke has blown away, so will
> the truth reappear and assert itself, when men grow calm, and put
> aside pride and passion and prejudice and self-interest. "Magna est
> veritas, et prevalebit!"
> 
> It has been said: "Mundus vult decipi"; the world wishes to be
> deceived; certainly the Anglican world does. But no one else is taken
> in. The Dissenter, the Nonconformist, and others who have no axe to
> grind, know well that "fine words butter no parsnips," and are far too
> shrewd to be deluded. Why, even the old Catholic cathedrals with
> their holy-water stoups, their occasional altars of stone, still
> remaining, their Lady chapels, and their niches for the images of the
> saints, as ill befit the present occupiers, and their modern English
> services, as a Court dress befits a clown.
> 
> That the sublime grotesqueness of the whole contention is clearly
> visible to other besides Catholic eyes is clearly proved by the
> occasional observations of the non-Catholic Press. Here, again, we
> will offer the gentle reader a specimen. The _Daily News_ is one of
> London's big dailies. It has a wide circulation. It is representative
> of a large section of the English people. Let us select a passage from
> one of its leaders. Speaking of the arrogance of the Anglican Church,
> which, as compared to the Catholic Church, is but a baby, still in
> long clothes, it gives expression to its views in the following
> caustic lines. One might almost imagine it were the _Tablet_ or
> _Catholic Times_ that we are about to quote from, but, nothing of the
> kind, it is the Nonconformist organ, the _Daily News_. It writes:
> "The Anglicans may still persist in patronising the Roman Catholics as
> a new set of modern dissidents under the old name. It is the sort of
> vengeance which, under favourable circumstances, the mouse may enjoy
> at the expense of the elephant. If he can mount high enough by
> artificial means, the smallest of created things may contrive to look
> down on the greatest, and to affect to compassionate his want of
> range. For purposes of controversy, the Anglican could talk of himself
> as a terrestrial ancient-of-days, and regret the rage for innovation,
> which led, not, of course, to his separation from Rome, but to Rome's
> separation from him! So the pebble, if determined to put a good face
> on it, might wonder what had become of the rock, and recite the
> parable of the return of the prodigal to the Atlas Range"; and so
> forth. The fact is that every unprejudiced man, who has so much as a
> mere bowing acquaintance with the facts of history, knows perfectly
> well that before the sixteenth century the Church in England was
> united to the Holy See, and rested where Christ Himself had built it,
> _viz._, on Peter, the rock. Whereas, after the sixteenth century, it
> became a State Church, dependent, not on Peter, but upon Parliament,
> and as purely local, national, and English as the British Army or the
> British Navy. Bramhall tells us that, "whatsoever power our laws did
> divest the Pope of, they invested the King with" (_Schism Guarded_, p.
> 340).
> 
> We dealt in the last chapter with the relation between the
> pre-Reformation Archbishops and Metropolitans and the Pope, and we saw
> how each in turn swore obedience to the Vicar of Christ as his
> spiritual sovereign. We will now conclude the present chapter by
> transcribing a typical address presented by another representative
> body of men to the Pope, in past times. It is the year 1427. Now
> Chicheley, the Archbishop of Canterbury, had been accused at Rome of
> some fault or indiscretion, so the other Bishops of the province met
> together for the purpose of defending him. With this end in view,
> they address a letter to Pope Martin V. It begins as follows:--
> 
> "Most Blessed Father, one and only undoubted Sovereign Pontiff, Vicar
> of Jesus Christ upon earth, with all promptitude of service and
> obedience, kissing most devoutly your blessed feet," and so forth.
> They then proceed to defend their Metropolitan, and in doing so
> declare that "the Archbishop of Canterbury is, Most Blessed Father, a
> most devoted son of your Holiness and of the Holy Roman Church". Nay,
> more; they go on to testify that "he is so rooted in his loyalty, and
> so unshaken in his allegiance especially to the Roman Church, that it
> is known to the whole world, and ought to be known to the city
> (_i.e._, Rome) that he is the most faithful son of the Church of Rome,
> promoting and securing, with all his strength, the guarantees of her
> liberty".
> 
> Now, what we wish to know is, how in the world can a man be "the most
> faithful son of the Church of Rome," so rooted in his loyalty to her
> that "his allegiance is known to the whole world," and yet not be a
> Roman Catholic? The Bishops then add that "they go down upon their
> knees" to beseech the Pope's favour for the Archbishop, and in doing
> so declare that they are "the most humble sons of your Holiness and of
> the Roman Church".
> 
> Then Archbishop Chicheley follows up their letter, by writing one
> himself, in which he says: "Most Blessed Father, kissing most
> devotedly the ground beneath your feet, with all promptitude of
> service and obedience, and whatsoever a most humble creature can do
> towards his lord and master" (_i.e._, domino et creatori--literally
> "creator," in the sense that the Pope had made or "created" him
> archbishop) and so forth. Then he goes on to explain that "Long before
> now, were it not for the perils of the journey and the infirmities of
> my old age, I would have made my way, Most Blessed Father, to your
> feet, and have accepted most obediently whatsoever your Holiness would
> have decided" (see Wilkins, vol. iii. pp. 471 and 486). Surely, no
> Archbishop or Bishop could use language of such profound reverence
> and of such perfect loyalty and obedience, unless he recognised the
> Pope as the true representative of Christ upon earth, invested with
> His divine authority ("To Thee do I give the keys of the Kingdom of
> Heaven"). There is a whole world of difference between such men and
> the Anglican Prelates of to-day who take the oath of homage to the
> King, and say: "I do hereby declare that your Majesty is the only
> supreme governor of this your realm, in spiritual and ecclesiastical
> things, as well as temporal".
> 
> CHAPTER IV.
> 
> KING EDWARD AND THE POPE.
> 
> In a previous chapter, we promised to tell of a famous letter written
> by one of our greatest kings to the Pope of his day. Let us then
> introduce this interesting historical incident without further
> preamble or delay.
> 
> The King of whom we are about to speak is King Edward III., who
> reigned over this land for more than fifty years, that is to say, from
> 1327 to 1377. The historian Hume tells us that, in general estimation,
> his reign was not only one of the longest, but that it was considered
> also "one of the most glorious that occurs in the annals of our
> nation" (vol. ii., p. 297). It is important to remember, further, that
> Edward was no timid weakling, ready to yield to others through
> weakness or fear. Quite the contrary. He was strong, war-like, and
> courageous. Hume informs us that "he curbed the licentiousness of the
> great; that he made his foremost nobles feel his power, and that they
> dared not even murmur against it, and that his valour and conduct made
> his knights and warriors successful in most of their enterprises"
> (_id._, p. 497). Yet, in spite of his strong, independent and man-like
> character--or shall we not rather say because of it?--he ever showed
> himself to be a most loyal child of the Catholic Church. He considered
> it no indication of weakness to acknowledge the spiritual supremacy
> and jurisdiction of the Sovereign Pontiff, and to subscribe himself as
> a most obedient son of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, as we shall now
> proceed to prove, in spite of all the frogs and jackdaws that the
> Bishop of London appeals to as witnesses to the contrary.
> 
> Now, it so fell out that, in the second decade of his reign, certain
> persons, with perhaps more zeal than discretion, began to lodge sundry
> complaints against the King. They carried stories to Rome, and sought
> to prejudice the Pope, Benedict XII., against King Edward. In the
> course of time the King got wind of what was going on, and found that
> the suspicions of the Pope had been raised against him. Now, what did
> Edward do? If he had been a modern Anglican, he would have snapped his
> fingers at the Pope. Forgetful of Our Lord's words, "Unless you become
> as little children you shall not enter the Kingdom of heaven," he
> would have proudly declared that no Pope or foreign Bishop could claim
> any jurisdiction in England, for that he himself was, in his own
> realm, the supreme authority in things ecclesiastical as well as in
> things temporal. Such would have been the natural and obvious course
> for him to have taken. That is to say had he been a modern Anglican.
> But since he was not a modern Anglican, but a genuine Roman Catholic
> to his very backbone, like all the rest of his kingdom, he did not act
> in that imperious, off-hand way, but was very much distressed and
> concerned, as a loving son would be, who had incurred the displeasure
> of a generous father. Finally, in the thirteenth year of his reign,
> that is to say, in 1339, he determined to address a letter to the
> Sovereign Pontiff, firstly to protest against these accusations,
> secondly to assure the Pope of his innocence, and thirdly to beg him
> to take no notice of those who had been calumniating him.
> 
> The document is a very remarkable one, and from the point of view of
> continuity (of which it completely disposes) it is of very
> considerable interest.
> 
> Before you read it, and ponder over its contents, let me remind you
> that the writing of a letter in those days was a very serious
> business. There was no post such as we have now, and special couriers
> had to be despatched from London to Rome. Paper had not as yet been
> invented, so the message had to be carefully written, by paid scribes,
> on vellum or parchment. Further, a letter from a King to the Pope was
> not a thing to be dashed off on the spur of the moment, but to be
> carefully thought out, and expressed with great accuracy. The King
> would summon his advisers, and his Secretary of State, and probably
> consult some of the Bishops and weigh each word before committing his
> message to parchment. In short, the document would represent his own
> deliberate convictions as well as those of his official advisers and
> counsellors.
> 
> After addressing the Pope in the usual respectful and filial way, he
> says: "Let not the envious information of our detractors find place in
> the meek mind of your Holiness, or create any sinister opinion of a
> son" [observe the King calls himself a son of the Pope], "who after
> the manner of his predecessors" [so previous Kings were as loyal as
> he] "shall always firmly persist in amity and obedience to the
> Apostolic See. Nay, if any such evil suggestion concerning your son
> should knock for entrance at your Holiness's ears, let no belief be
> allowed it till the son who is concerned be heard, who trusts and
> always intends both to say and to prove that each of his actions is
> just before the tribunal of your Holiness, _presiding over every
> creature, which to deny is to maintain heresy_." Nothing could be
> stronger than this last sentence; but we will return to that later.
> Then the King goes on to speak of others, who are dependent upon him,
> and proceeds as follows: "And further, this we say, adjoining it as a
> further evidence of our intention and greater devotion, that if there
> be any one of our kindred or allies who walks not as he ought in the
> way of _obedience towards the Apostolic See_, we intend to bestow our
> diligence--and we trust to no little purpose--that leaving his
> wandering course, he may return into the path of duty and walk
> regularly for the future".
> 
> From these words it is clear that the King of England, not satisfied
> with obeying the Pope himself, likewise insisted upon all under his
> authority obeying him likewise. Indeed, he would have made short work
> of those who should refuse to do so. Then, alluding to some reproach,
> admonition or censure which he had received from the Pope, he goes on
> to express himself in words strangely out of harmony with the whole
> tone and spirit of modern Anglicanism. They are as follows:--
> 
> "That the Kings of England, our predecessors, those illustrious
> champions of Christ, those defenders of the Faith, those" [listen!]
> "_zealous asserters of the rights of the Holy Roman Church, and devout
> observers of her commands_, that they or we should deserve this
> unkindness, we neither know nor believe. And though, for this very
> reason many do say--though we say not so--that this aiding of our
> enemies against us, seems neither the act of a father nor of a mother
> towards us, but rather of a stepmother; yet this notwithstanding, we
> constantly avow that we are" [remember, it is still the King of
> England speaking], "and shall continue to be, to your Holiness and to
> your seat, a devout and humble son, and not a step-son".
> 
> Can any one imagine greater reverence or greater loyalty to the Vicar
> of Christ than is shown forth in these words? Can you, dear readers,
> by any stretch of the imagination, conceive any one who is not a Roman
> Catholic giving vent to such sentiments as are here expressed? Have
> words lost their plain meaning for the Bishop of London, and for those
> who (we must in charity suppose, _blindly_) follow him?
> 
> The letter is a long one, and we need not transcribe the whole of it,
> but we will offer for your consideration just one more paragraph. The
> King writes: "Your Holiness best knows the measure of good and just,
> in whose hands are the keys to open and to shut the gates of heaven on
> earth, as the _fulness of your power_ and the excellence of your
> judicature requires.... We being ready to receive information of the
> truth, from your sacred tribunal, _which is over all_," etc.
> 
> Observe these words were written over five hundred years ago, long
> before the present Anglican Establishment was so much as dreamed of;
> yet, even if King Edward III. had actually foreseen the craze that
> would seize Anglicans of to-day to prove that he, and his subjects
> were not loyal Roman Catholics, he could not have expressed his
> Catholicity and his loyalty to the Vicar of Christ in more
> unmistakable or in more explicit terms.
> 
> Whom shall we believe? King Edward III. himself, who, in the above
> words, declares he is a staunch Roman Catholic, and an obedient son of
> the Pope, ready to defend his rights against all, or the present
> Bishop of London, who declares he was not?
> 
> There is one sentence in the King's letter which is especially worthy
> of consideration, as it is so pregnant with meaning. We refer to the
> following: knowing that "your Holiness presides over every creature,
> _which to deny is heresy_".
> 
> You will observe that the King not only believes, but that he here
> practically makes an explicit profession of faith in the spiritual
> supremacy of St. Peter and his successors, the Popes. In fact, he not
> only admits and confesses the Pope's supremacy to be true, which is
> one thing, but he declares it to be a _revealed_ truth, taught by Our
> Blessed Lord Himself, which is a great deal more. How does he do this?
> Suffer us to explain.
> 
> To deny any truth of religion is wrong and sinful, but it is not
> necessarily and always heretical. Heresy is not the denial of any kind
> of truth: it is the denial only of a special form of truth. It is the
> denial of those truths which have been taught by Jesus Christ and the
> Apostles. But the King explicitly declares in his letter to the Holy
> Father that to deny the Pope's spiritual supremacy over all is not
> only wrong, not only sinful, but that it is to be guilty of the
> specially horrible sin of heresy. His words are: "It is to maintain
> heresy". Yet Anglicans still fondly cling to the delusion that the
> Church in England in the time of Edward III. is in unbroken continuity
> with the Church of England in the time of King Edward VII.!
> 
> But, to continue. It is interesting to note that the Pope, Benedict
> XII., in due course replies to this letter from his "devout and humble
> son," as Edward describes himself. He begins by expressing his
> satisfaction that His "most dear Son in Christ King Edward of England"
> should thus "follow the commendable footsteps of your progenitors,
> Kings of England who," he goes on to say, "were famous for the fulness
> of their devotion and faith towards God and the Holy Roman Church".
> 
> Will the present Bishop of London, we wonder, be good enough to
> explain how Pope Benedict XII. could possibly tell a renowned King of
> England that his progenitors, that is to say, the Kings of England who
> had preceded him, were famous--mark the word--"_famous_ for the
> _fulness_ of their devotion and faith towards God _and the Holy Roman
> Church_," if they were all the while cut off from the Roman Church,
> and denounced as heretics by that Church, if, in short, they were of
> one and the same faith as the Anglicans are to-day? We pause for a
> reply. Of course we know that Anglicans are very hard pressed, and in
> a quandary, and that some allowance must be made for drowning men when
> they stretch forth their trembling hands to clutch at straws. But
> really the claim to continuity, however vital to them, should hardly
> be put forward in the face of such clear and overwhelming evidence of
> its falsity. The ultimate effects of such vain efforts to prove black
> to be white can only be to make them ridiculous, and to discredit them
> in the eyes of honest men.
> 
> In conclusion, we are persuaded that some may feel curious or
> interested to see and read King Edward's letter for themselves, and in
> its entirety. Some may even wish to satisfy themselves that we are
> stating actual facts, and not romancing; so let us inform any such
> persons that the letter quoted belongs to the thirteenth year of King
> Edward III.'s reign (An. Regni xiii. Ed. Rex III.). The original, if
> not at the Vatican, should be either at the Record Office or at the
> British Museum. The English version, of which we have made use, may be
> found on pages 126-30 of _The History of Edward III._, by J. Barnes,
> Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and published in 1688. Had this
> history been composed in more modern times, this famous letter to Pope
> Benedict would probably have been quietly suppressed or omitted.
> 
> But in 1688 the theory of continuity had not been invented by the
> father of lies, to bolster up a lost cause, so the letter actually
> appears in Barnes' History, to tell its own unvarnished tale: and to
> bear its uncompromising testimony to the truth.
> 
> In the meanwhile, time wears on, and the end draws near when each man
> will have to give an account of his life and conduct to the Supreme
> Judge of the living and the dead. And it will go hard with us if we
> turn our back upon the truth. God is speaking in this England of ours,
> and shedding His light, and many are finding their way back to that
> glorious Faith of which they were cruelly robbed at the "Reformation".
> "To-day, if you shall hear His voice, harden not your hearts," but
> lend an attentive ear to His invitation, and pray that you may have
> courage enough to join hands once again with Bede, and Dunstan,
> Anselm, and Thomas a Becket, and with Edward III. and his royal
> predecessors, all faithful sons of St. Peter and the Holy See, and to
> enter that Church which was built by God Incarnate on Peter, and upon
> no other foundation; which still rests securely upon Peter, and which
> (if there be any truth in God's promises) will continue to rest on
> Peter till the end of time. "Upon this Rock (Peter) will I build My
> Church, and the gates of hell (_i.e._, the powers of darkness) shall
> never prevail against it."
>
> — *The Purpose of the Papacy (Public Domain)*