|
Table of Contents Chapter Six--The True Church CHAPTER 6 In order to show that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, we must go back
to the Gospels, about which I told you in our third chat. We shall abstract
from their inspired character, about which you will be told later on, and shall consider
them merely as historical documents, whose reliability, as. I have shown, cannot be
reasonably questioned. In the last chat I mentioned the Apostles, who were Christ's constant companions during
His public life on earth. Now, the office of these chosen disciples was, as the Gospels
clearly show, to go forth after Christ's ascension and teach all men the truths that had
been revealed to themselves. In this ministry they were not to be left to themselves, for
thus either they or their successors could fall into error in their teaching and thus lead
mankind astray. No, Christ, Who is Infinite Wisdom Incarnate, would not allow His
revelation to be thus corrupted and His work undone, and so He endowed His teaching
body-the Apostolic college and their successors till the end of time-with infallibility.
That big word is often confused with another big word, impeccability. The
latter term means freedom from the power of sinning. A person is impeccable if he
cannot sin. Jesus Christ could not sin, for He is a Divine Person. But we poor
mortals, even the chosen Apostles, are all sinners. The Apostles had to work out
their salvation like us. We do not, as some people imagine, claim impeccability for the
Pope. However, let me leave the Papacy for a future chat. CHRIST PROMISED THE CHURCH INFALLIBILITY Infallibility means freedom from teaching error; it means that, through God's
protection and guidance, the Apostles and their successors must, in their official
teaching, set forth the very teaching of Christ without addition, diminution (or
lessening), change, or corruption. Christ emphatically, solemnly, and repeatedly
guaranteed that His Church would never fall into error-that the living authority He
established to teach mankind would be gifted with freedom from error in its official
teaching, so that His Church would live on through the ages unchanged and unchangeable,
uncorrupted and incorruptible, unconquered and unconquerable. Thus the oldest church,
which is admittedly the Catholic Church (which, at any rate, is admitted to have been in
existence centuries before Protestantism), must be the true Church for the simple reason
that the Church Christ founded could not change. But I must develop and explain this
simple, convincing argument. Let us go to the Gospels and see how plainly and emphatically
Christ promised that the Church He founded would never err.
THE APOSTLES CLAIMED INFALLIBILITY From all the passages I have quoted, my dear inquirer, it is abundantly plain that
Christ gave a solemn assurance that His Church would never fall into error; that it would
ever teach the very truths He had committed to it; that, in a word, it would always be
infallible. The Apostles, of course, were fully aware of this, and they explicitly claimed
infallibility in their teaching. 1. They call the Holy Ghost a fellow witness of the truths they proclaim to men:
"We are witnesses of those things, and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all
that obey Him" (Acts 5:32). Again: "It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to
us" (ibid. 15:28). 2. St. Paul claims that the teaching of the Apostles is the very word of God: "Our
exhortation was not of error, nor of uncleanness, nor in deceit; but as we were approved
of God that the Gospel should be committed to us, even so we speak not as pleasing men,
but God, who proveth our hearts" (1 Thess. II., 3). And again: "When you had
received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but
(as it truly is) the word of God, Who worketh in you that you have believed" (ibid.
13).
From what has been proved it follows that the Church founded by Christ simply could not
change its doctrine. Hence the Church of the third century taught the same doctrines as
the Church of the Apostles; the Church of the sixth century the same as the Church of the
third; the Church of the sixteenth century the same as the Church of the sixth, of the
third, and of the Apostles. Yet, in the sixteenth century, when the whole of Christendom was Catholic, or, as some
would prefer to say, Roman Catholic (with the exception of the Greeks, who had finally
broken away in the fifteenth century, but who still believed practically every Catholic
doctrine), Martin Luther and Company rose up and denied doctrine after doctrine of the
Universal Church, setting up their own man-made systems of religion. To say that Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII., Cramner, John Knox, and other sixteenth
century and later rebels against the Universal Church were right, is not only to admit
that contradictions can be true, but it is also to utter the implicit blasphemy that
Christ did not keep His solemn promises-that he who heard the Apostles and their
successors did not hear Christ; that the Spirit of Truth did not remain with the teachers
of the Church for ever; that Christ did not stay with his teaching body all days; that the
Church is not the pillar and the ground of truth. Once we accept the Gospels as trustworthy historical documents, we must admit that
Christ is divine and that the Catholic Church is the one Church founded by..Him. For the
doctrine of the Catholic Church in the sixteenth century must have been identical with the
doctrine of the Church of the Apostles, and the teaching of the Catholic Church of the
twentieth century must be the same as that of the Church of the sixteenth century. TESTIMONY OF LORD MACAULAY The Catholic Church will live on until the end of time, ever guarded by her Divine
Founder; ever blessed with the presence of the Spirit of Truth; ever triumphing over
error, ever shining before the world as a divine institution, as the one true Church, the
Church of Jesus Christ. No one can consider Lord Macaulay prejudiced in favor of the Catholic Church. Yet he
wrote of her: "She may still exist in undiminished vigor when some travelers from New
Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London
Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul's." Let me now, my dear friend, in closing our chat, narrate a little story. A Catholic, a
Protestant, and a Jew once had a friendly argument as to which is the true religion. They
could argue for hours (and often did) without the slightest sign of a quarrel. And always
they parted the best of friends. On the occasion to which I allude the three had a very
long discussion. At last the Jew said: "I'll sum up the whole situation. If the
Messiah has not come, my religion is right. If the Messiah has come, the religion of our
friend the Catholic is right. But, whether the Messiah has come or not, the religion of
our friend the Protestant is wrong. NOTE: Whatever may be thought of Macaulay's words, we all most sincerely hope that the
barbarous warfare of Hitler will not succeed in creating the condition of London
envisioned by Macaulay. On the contrary, we earnestly pray that the menace known as Nazism
will be pulverized and that a renewed London, fairer still than the older city, will arise
and endure. CHAPTER 7 'There are certain marks or visible attributes with which the Church of Christ is
endowed. Our reason tells us that, if God the Son made man instituted a Church for the
salvation of mankind, it must have these properties, and, when we study the Gospels and
the other New Testament writings, that conviction is confirmed. I shall single out the
chief marks which characterize the Church established by Jesus Christ. They are four in
number: unity, catholicity, apostolicity, and holiness. Let us consider each. CHRIST'S CHURCH MUST BE ONE Of course, there can be only one Church of Christ. But at present, in speaking of unity
or oneness, we mean that the same doctrines must be taught throughout the Church and that
the same doctrines must be believed by all the members of the Church without exception;
that the same sacraments must be administered everywhere in the Church, the self-same
sacrifice offered, and the same supreme authority obeyed. Only when these conditions are
fulfilled, can we have true unity in a church. Now, anyone who gives even a passing glance
at non-Catholic denominations (or, if you wish, non-Catholic churches) must see that no
such unity is found in any of them; that, in fact, such unity is unattainable by them in
their present condition. PRIVATE JUDGMENT RENDERS UNITY IMPOSSIBLE No Protestant Church claims infallibility. Yet without an infallible authority
doctrinal unity is an impossibility. And the principle of private judgment, according
to which each one takes his own meaning out of Scripture, which he regards as the only
source of God's revelation, makes it a sheer impossibility to have anything even
approaching doctrinal unity in the true sense of the expression. This is evident; and so I
need not dwell on it, although I could give you many instances to prove it. Even in the Church of England, with the official Book of Common Prayer and with
Bishops, there is hopeless division. There we see the High Church, the Broad Church, and
the Low Church. There we see a man like Bishop Barnes, of Birmingham, teaching what is the
contradiction of traditional Anglicanism and even the contradiction of the fundamental
tenets of Christianity, yet still holding his office as Anglican Bishop. Just ask any
member of the Anglican Church: What doctrines exactly must one hold in order to be a
member of your church, and what doctrines exactly may he reject without ceasing to be an
Anglican? I have never received a reply to that question. But one young man, to whom I put
that, amongst other questions, and who was contemplating taking Anglican Orders, ended by
becoming a Catholic. I may say, in passing, that the following were the questions I
put to him, adding that, of course, he might consult his own minister:
Now, my dear inquirer, I do not expect you to go into those questions yet; I just
mentioned this matter in passing, though it pertains to the subject we are chatting over.
Perhaps, however, you are not now surprised that the young man to whom I put those
questions decided not to take Orders in the Anglican Church, but to become a Catholic. As
for Orders, I shall explain that matter to you in due time. At present I am
treating of unity. MARVELLOUS UNITY IN THE CHURCH OF ROME In the Church of Rome (I use this expression because I have presently to prove that it
alone is catholic), we behold a wondrous unity of doctrine, worship, and
government. In whatever matters-and they are numerous-the Church has lifted up her
infallible voice and laid down irrevocable decisions, from the days of the first
General Council of Bishops to the present time, there is no room in the Church of Rome for
two opinions. You may go to a Catholic school-child in Mexico, to a Catholic priest in
Japan, to a Catholic old lady in America, to a Catholic young man in Ireland or England or
Scotland, to a Catholic Bishop in France or Spain or Germany, to a Child of Mary in Italy
or Australia-you may approach a Catholic of any age or sex or condition in any
country throughout the whole world-and ask: Should we pray for the dead? Is the Mass a
sacrifice? Ought we to honor and invoke the Blessed Virgin? How are we to get our sins
forgiven? Is Baptism necessary for salvation? What is the Blessed Eucharist? Who is the
visible Head of the Church? Always and everywhere you will receive the very same
answer. The wondrous unity of the Church of Rome is in itself, apart from the historical
arguments I gave in our previous chat, a convincing proof of the divinity of our
Church, for such extraordinary unity amongst over four hundred millions of people who
differ in language, nationality,. and political interests, yet unite perfectly in
believing and professing the same doctrines, receiving the same sacraments, offering the
same sacrifice, and obeying the same visible Head, is truly a supernatural phenomenon
stupendous, marvelous reality that can be explained only as coming from God. CATHOLICITY The word catholic means universal-belonging to every nation,
international, supranational. Catholic means pertaining to every age or
century and to every country or race. It is the opposite of national, and
hence any religious organization that has a national sovereign-an earthly king-as its head
and is also practically restricted, as regards its membership, to the country or
empire over which that king holds sway, must say good-bye to any claim to catholicity.
Therefore, the Church of England is decidedly not Catholic. To apply to it the term Anglo-Catholic
is to unite two contradictory or opposing things and is as logical as to talk of fried
ice-cream! Likewise, the other various Protestant denominations must be excluded from
any logical claim to Catholicity, for Lutherans are confined chiefly to Germans and people
of German descent, Methodists chiefly to a certain portion or certain portions of
the English-speaking people, Presbyterians especially to Scots and those of Scottish
descent, and so on. Besides, not one non-Catholic (or "non-Roman") denomination
belongs to every century, for Protestantism sprang up, as I have shown, in the
sixteenth century. And the Greek Church broke away in the eighth century, returned to
re-union with Rome later on, and finally broke off in the fifteenth century; and, besides,
it comprises only some oriental 'races, especially Greeks. But the great Church over which the Bishop of Rome exercises jurisdiction is alone
truly catholic, for it comprises more than four hundred million members, outnumbering all
Protestants combined, and probably, Protestants and Greeks combined. It embraces people of
every nation-English and Germans, French and Italians, Spaniards and Irish, Americans and
Australians, Greeks and Jugo-Slavs, Chinese and Indians, Japanese and Arabs, and it also
extends back to every century from the time of Christ. At times we hear the expression Roman Catholic. And some Anglicans say that they
use Anglo-Catholic in a similar sense, qualifying Catholic by Anglo. But
there is a tremendous difference between the use of the qualifying particle in the two
cases, for Anglo denotes the nationality-the national character of the church-whereas
Roman has nothing to do with the nationality of Catholics, but simply denotes that
the head of the Catholic Church, which embraces all nations, is the Bishop of Rome.
Rome is to the Catholic Church what the centre of a circle is to the circumference. Roman
Catholic, then, and Catholic are synonymous; that is, they have exactly the same meaning. APOSTOLICITY AND HOLINESS I must not make our chat too long for you, my dear inquirer, and so I shall
speak but briefly of the two other marks of the Church. From what I said in our previous
chats it is evident that the Catholic Church, dating back, not to Luther or Calvin or
Henry VIII., but to our Savior Himself, who founded it on the Apostles, is alone truly
apostolic. Besides, we can point to the long line of Roman Pontiffs, uninterrupted from
Peter to Pius XII., thus showing true apostolic succession. As regards holiness, we do not claim that all Catholics are leading exemplary lives or
deny that many non-Catholics are personally holy. When we say that the Catholic Church is
eminently holy, we mean that her doctrines are heavenly and her moral code so sublime as
to be the most exalted that the human race has known. In fact, it is sometimes urged
against her that her exposition of the divine law in regard to purity, marriage, justice,
and self-denial is too rigid, and that her own discipline is too exacting. By the holiness
of the Church we mean also that she provides her members with the most effective means of
attaining a very high standard of sanctity, and she has actually produced extraordinary
holiness in the lives of countless souls within her bosom. We mean also that her teaching
and means of sanctification have caused to blossom forth, down through the centuries,
institutions that bear upon their countenances the seal of heavenly holiness-religious
Orders, orphanages. hospitals, homes for the fallen and aged, schools and colleges,
missionary societies, organizations consecrated to relief of the poor, and countless holy
undertakings. One who carefully and prayerfully studies the Church of Rome and considers her unity,
catholicity, apostolicity, and holiness, must spontaneously bow to her and accept her
teachings as the doctrines of Jesus Christ made known to fallen men through his infallible
mouthpiece. THE PAPACY So far, my dear inquirer, I have proved to you from mere reason that there is an
eternal, intelligent, infinite Being whom we call God, and that He may, if He choose,
reveal truths to mankind. I have shown that the New Testament is a collection of
trustworthy historical documents which cannot be reasonably rejected, but must, on the
contrary, be accepted by any normally intelligent, unbiased person as containing a
faithful record of genuine historical events. I have proved from those records that Christ
is truly God and that He founded a Church, the Catholic Church, which has come down
through the ages quite unchanged and will remain unchanged until the end of the world.
From the evidence I have so far submitted, you can easily, with God's help, now accept or
assent to all the doctrines officially taught by the Catholic Church, as the teaching of
Jesus Christ-as God's Revelation to man. However, I shall deal with those doctrines in
detail, thus making it easier still for you to accept them. And, first of all, I shall
treat of the Papacy, which enters into the very constitution of the Church as founded by
Christ, and should therefore be dealt with before treating in detail of the other
doctrines of the Church. THE CHURCH MUST HAVE A HEAD Every living thing-at least every living organism that is not merely rudimentary-has a
head, You could not imagine a living fish or bird or animal not having a head, and you
certainly could not imagine a living human being without a head. Likewise, every society,
even an imperfect society, has a head. A football team must have a captain; a business
firm must have a manager; and a city has its mayor. There is a head of every state or
nation. A headless state or republic or kingdom is unthinkable. Now, the Church is essentially a society. I had better explain this term
briefly. A society is not a mere crowd or gathering of people. People are required to make
a society, but a mere crowd or number of persons does not constitute a society. Something
else is manifestly required. If, for instance, twenty persons just happened to be waiting
together, having come from different places, to catch a train (or a car, I, you
would not call that group a society. Nor would you term all the people gathered together
in a picture theatre a society. But, if twenty people formed a club, drew up rules,
elected a president or chairman, a secretary, and a treasurer, you would have a little
society-an imperfect society. Thus a tennis club or a football team may be termed a
society. A society consists of human beings who band together for a definite aim or work
or project; who act in unison or harmony, each doing his or her respective part; who have
a definite code of rules; and who are guided by certain office-bearers under a chief
leader. That simple explanation will suffice. The two perfect societies in the world are the Church and the State. The latter is a natural
society, which cares for the temporal welfare or good of its citizens, while the
former is a supernatural society, which leads its members to their eternal goal-the
possession of God in the next life. In due time I shall explain to you the
supernatural life. "One thing at a time" is a good rule, and I cannot expect you
to absorb all Catholic teaching at once. But, my dear friend, one thing should be evident
to you at this stage as regards the constitution of the Church. Since it is a society, it
must have a head. Can we suppose that the perfect supernatural society or kingdom
instituted by the God-Man is alone, of all rightly constituted societies, without a head?
Such a supposition would be a slur on the wisdom, power, and goodness of the Divine
Founder of the Church. Reason revolts against such a supposition, reverence forbids it,
faith repudiates it, revelation rejects it, history denies it. WHO IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH? Christ, of course, is the Supreme Head of the Church which He founded. But, since He
was not to live in our midst, in His visible presence, He appointed a visible head of His
Church-one who would rule as His vicegerent or vicar. Just as the Apostles and their
successors were appointed to teach in the name of Christ ("He that heareth you
heareth Me"), so one of the Apostles was appointed by Christ to rule the entire
Church in His name and to have a lawful successor in that office till the end of time. When we read the New Testament attentively, we see that Christ appointed Peter to this
exalted office. And the history of early times clearly shows that the Bishop of Rome is
Peter's lawful successor in that office of headship of Christ's Church. Let me now, my dear inquirer, prove these statements. For the sake of greater clearness I shall set forth in three statements what I am going to prove to you in this and subsequent chats about the Papacy or Roman Primacy or Headship of Christ's Church:
THE PRIMACY OF PETER I could bring forward many texts from the New Testament to show that the primacy was
conferred on Peter. But once more I remind you, my dear friend, that I am but giving you a
rather summary course of Catholic doctrine, though I daresay that to you it seems very
exhaustive. If you wish to study a more detailed treatment and proof of the Roman Primacy,
you may take this booklet, "Who is the Pope?" which the Paulist Press of New
York has published for me. (The remaining copies of the English edition, published by
Sands and Company, have all been destroyed, with those of another work I had published, in
the recent air raids on London.) I shall single out the three most striking passages in the Gospels which show clearly
that Peter was appointed chief or supreme ruler of the Church. I may mention that the
original name of this Apostle was Simon, and that Christ, as we shall see, changed
it into Peter. We find SS. Matthew and John calling him Simon Peter. Let us
now consider the three passages to which I have referred. "Jesus saith to them: But who do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God. And Jesus, answering, said to him; Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father Who is in heaven. And I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt
bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth,
it shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matt. 16:15-19). Five things strike our attention in this passage:
METAPHOR OF THE ROCK The English translation does not give us the full force of the original. Without taking
you, my dear friend, into the intricacies of biblical language, you are aware that Christ
did not speak in English, and that our English Bible is but a translation. The language
which Christ used in the passage I have cited is known as Aramaic. In the English
translation we have two distinct words, Peter and rock, although they have
the same meaning. In Latin we have two almost identical words, Petrus and petra,
which also have the very same meaning. In Greek the same occurs-Petros and Petra.
But the Greek and Latin versions of Matthew's Gospel are but translations of the
original Aramaic, written by the Evangelist himself. Now, in the Aramaic there are not two
words, as in the versions I have quoted. Only one word, kepha, is used, and
this word means rock. So that the really literal translation of Christ's words would be:
"I say to thee that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build My Church." You may rightly ask, then, why we find two words in the Latin, Greek, and English
translations. The reason is simply that petra (rock) in Greek and Latin is a feminine
noun, and it would be queer to give a man a feminine appellation; therefore a masculine
termination was given, and the Apostle was called Petros, Petrus. It is for
precisely the same reason that we call a boy Patrick and a girl Patricia, or
a boy Joseph and a girl Josephine. The French version is a most accurate
translation of the Aramaic, for it has the word pierre for both Peter and rock. Pierre
is the French for rock, and it is also the name given to a boy as the
equivalent of Peter. You may wonder, my dear friend, why I have elaborated this point. Well, Protestants
used formerly to make capital of the fact that in the English Bible (as if Christ
had spoken in English!) two distinct words were used, and on this fact they strove to
build a false argument by maintaining that the word rock did not refer to Peter.
Nowadays, however, the more learned Protestants readily admit that the two words refer
to the Apostle Simon or Peter. Thus Dr. Marsh, Anglican Bishop of Peterborough, wrote:
"It seems a desperate undertaking to prove that Our Savior alluded to any other
person than to St. Peter, for the words of the passage can indicate no one else." ("Comparative
View," Appendix Note D.) We should notice, too, that the demonstrative adjective this in the phrase,
"upon this rock," compels us grammatically to identify rock with Peter;
otherwise the phrase would be meaningless. Christ, then, promised to build His Church on Peter. Now, as the foundation of a building gives strength, stability, unity, and permanence to the building which is erected on it, so Peter must impart these qualities to the spiritual edifice known as the Church, and this he cannot do unless he exercises supreme authority (of teaching and ruling), over the entire Church. The Church is a society, and to say that Peter is the foundation of that society is to express in another form that he holds supreme authority over all its members, thus imparting to that society its stability and unity. In our next chat I shall continue to develop the passage I have quoted from the
sixteenth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, and shall then deal with two other Gospel
passages which I shall quote for you. CHAPTER 9 In the remarkable promise made by Christ to Simon Peter and recorded in the sixteenth
chapter of the Gospel of St. Matthew, the supreme authority Peter was to exercise over the
Church is expressed in three metaphors. We have already considered the first; let us now
pass on to the second. THE METAPHOR 0F THE KEYS The second figure of speech is expressed in these words: "I will give to thee the
keys of the kingdom of heaven." These words simply mean: "I will give thee
supreme authority over my church." For (i) the kingdom of heaven here means
the Church; and (ii) to be given the keys of a kingdom signifies to be appointed ruler of
that kingdom.
IN METAPHOR OF BINDING AND LOSING A third metaphor Christ used to express the supreme authority He was going to confer on
Peter: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." Peter is
here promised the power to bind his subjects, the members, that is, of Christ's Church, by
laws, commands, censures, etc., and to free their souls from spiritual fetters-sins,
punishment due to sins, ecclesiastical censures. In other words, Christ here promises to
make Peter the sovereign ruler, the supreme legislator, in His kingdom, which is the
Church. Although this power of binding and loosing was later promised to the college of the
Apostles (Matt. 18:18), still it was promised first to Peter individually, to show that he
was to possess it in a singular or eminent degree. To Peter alone, however, were two great
prerogatives promised by his Divine Master: Peter individually was to be the rock-built
foundation of Christ's Church, and Peter alone was to be the key-bearer of this
kingdom-both of which metaphors, as I have shown, clearly contain the divine promise of
jurisdiction or supreme authority over the entire Church. CHRIST'S PRAYER FOR PETER In His farewell words to the Apostles Our Savior declared: "I dispose to you, as
my Father hath disposed to me, a kingdom." He then warned them, through Simon Peter,
that Satan was plotting against that kingdom, striving to overthrow it at its inception by
destroying the faith of the Apostles. "And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan
hath desired to have you (plural), that he may sift you (plural) as
wheat" (Luke 22:31). Note the plural in this text: Satan (about whom you will be told in due time-in a later
chat) desired to have all the Apostles. Yet, wonderful to say, Christ prayed for Peter
individually and appointed him to the office of confirming his brethren (the
other Apostles), or keeping them in the faith. "But I have prayed for thee, that
thy faith fail thee not, and thou being once converted confirm thy
brethren" (ibid., v.32). Here we see Peter appointed to, or singled out for, the office of supreme teacher in
Christ's kingdom, the Church. THE BESTOWAL OF THE PRIMACY ON PETER After His resurrection the Savior fulfilled, in unmistakable language, the solemn
promise recorded by St. Matthew. The fulfillment of This promise is narrated in the
twenty-first chapter of St. John's Gospel. Let us read together carefully verses
15-17. Without taking you far into the realm of biblical language, I may state that St. John
wrote his Gospel in Greek. The three English texts we have just read, "Feed my lambs
. . . Feed my sheep," are slightly different in the original Greek, for the word
lambs (in its equivalent Greek) occurs but once, while the Greek for sheep occurs
twice. However, this slight variation in our English translation is unimportant, for both
the Greek and the English show most clearly that Christ committed to Peter His entire flock-both
lambs and sheep. But the English word feed does not convey the full force of the original. In
verse 15 it corresponds to the Greek; but in the following two cases (vv. 16 and 17) the
Greek word employed really means be shepherd over. I may remark that the Greek word
used invariably means, both in the Old and New Testament, to rule with authority, and that
even pagan classical writers have used its equivalent noun, shepherd or pastor, as
synonymous with king or ruler. To sum up: Christ's words here mean, "Be shepherd over, or rule, my whole
flock." PETER EXERCISED SUPREME AUTHORITY The Acts of the Apostles is a book written by Luke the Evangelist (although the
authorship does not matter for the moment), giving an account of the Apostolic Church. You
may read through this book at your leisure. But I would draw your attention just now to
the fact that, although the author of this work is giving us, in the first twelve
chapters, a short, general history of the Church, Peter's name is mentioned more than
fifty times-more frequently than the names of all the other Apostles together. And
consider the following striking facts: Peter proposes the choice of an Apostle in place of
Judas; when Peter's name is mentioned with the names of the other Apostles, his name is
always put first; Peter works the first miracle; Peter speaks to Annas, Caiphas, and
others in the name of all the Apostles; Peter is the first to preach to the multitude;
Peter judges Ananias and Saphira; Peter is the first to receive Gentiles into the Church;
Peter visits all the newly-established Christian communities; Peter's discourses are given
at length. Once more, my dear inquirer, I would remind you that in these "chats" I am
striving to avoid a too elaborate explanation and also a too meager exposition and proof
of Catholic doctrine. Already I have more than once offered you books which deal in
greater detail with the subjects about which we have been chatting. And, as regards
Peter's office, I would recommend, for a fuller study of this matter, an admirable work
written by a distinguished convert from the Anglican communion, "St. Peter, His Name,
His Office, and His See," by T. W. Allies. Incidentally, I may mention that this work
bears an excellent preface written by another prominent convert from Anglicanism, Rev.
Luke Rivington, M.A., whose conversion was due, in great part, to a careful study of
Peter's Primacy. THE PRIMACY MUST LAST AS LONG AS THE CHURCH Since the Church, according to the promises and institution of Christ, must last to the
end of time, it necessarily follows that whatever is essential to it, in doctrine, in
worship, in pbwer, and in organization, must likewise perpetually endure. The supreme Authority of which I have been speaking is surely essential to the Church.
This is clear from the fact that Peter was appointed or constituted the foundation of
the Church, the key-bearer of the kingdom, the supreme teacher (confirmor of
his brethren in the faith), and the sovereign shepherd of the flock of Christ.
Certainly a foundation is destined to last as long as the edifice raised on it; a
key-bearer or chief ruler must hold office as long as a kingdom stands; a supreme teacher
is required as long as there are brethren to be taught and kept in the unity of the faith;
a chief shepherd is needed as long as there is a flock to be tended. Hence it is clear
that the supreme office conferred on Peter must endure as long as the Church lasts, that
is until the end of the world. In our next chat I shall prove that the Roman Pontiff (the Bishop of Rome), whom we
call the Pope, has lawfully inherited this supreme office in the Church of God. CHAPTER 10 So far I have proved that the Divine Founder of the Church promised and gave Peter the
primacy of jurisdiction (or supreme authority) over the entire Church, and that He willed
this primacy to continue as long as the Church itself, that is, until the end of the
world. Let me now deal with the interesting question: Who, amongst all Bishops of the
Universal Church, is Peter's successor in the primacy conferred on him by Christ? Our
answer, given in the full light of genuine history, is very easy-the Bishop of Rome. Again
we say with Cardinal Newman: "To be deep in history is to cease to be a
Protestant." Educated Protestants of to-day readily admit that St. Peter was in Rome, and even
Bishop of that city. I shall not burden you, my dear friend, with the overwhelming
evidence that Peter finally fixed his See in Rome and was martyred there during the fierce
persecution that broke out against the Christians under the despotic Emperor Nero. Before,
however, proceeding further, I shall quote two Protestant writers. The Rev. Dr. Robertson wrote: "It is not so much a spirit of sound criticism as a
religious prejudice which has led some Protestants to deny that the Apostle (Peter) was
ever at Rome, where all ancient testimony represents him to have suffered, together with
St. Paul, in the reign of Nero." And Bishop Ellicot declared, "Nothing but
Protestant prejudice can stand against the historical evidence that St. Peter sojourned
and died in Rome." In the present chat, my dear searcher after truth, I shall show that the Bishops of
Rome have ever claimed, as successors of St. Peter, supreme authority over the Church, and
that this claim has been constantly recognized by the Church. THE ROMAN PONTIFFS HAVF, EVER CLAIMED AND EXERCISED
SUPREME AUTHORITY 1) The most ancient Christian document after the writings of the Apostles is the letter
of Clement to the Corinthians. St. Clement was the third successor of St. Peter as Bishop
of Rome. The order of the first four Popes is this: Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement. St.
John the Apostle and Evangelist was still living during the reign of Clement. About the
year 95 a dissension arose at Corinth. Yet it was Clement, not John, who
authoritatively intervened, for Clement, as Peter's successor, was the Head of the Church.
Here are a few passages from Clement's letter (you will see how he spoke with
authority-with the authority of a ruler-even to the Christians in what was then
distant Corinth):
CLEAR TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY FATHERS Those great scholars and writers (many of whom were Bishops) of the early ages of
Christianity are called the Fathers of the Church. Coming so soon after the Apostles, from
whom they had received the rich legacy of Christ's revelation, their testimony is
of great weight. Let us see what they have to say about the supremacy of the Bishop
of Rome, I shall single out but a few testimonies: 1) Writing of the Roman Church (i.e., the Church established in the City of Rome), St.
Irenaeus says: "For it is necessary that every church, that is, those (faithful)
who are everywhere, agree with this church because of its greater authority, in which
(church) the tradition which is from the Apostles has been preserved by those who are
everywhere." 2) St. Cyprian,' Bishop of Carthage, who was martyred in the year 258, teaches
that "there is one Church, founded by the Lord on Peter for the origin and purpose of
unity." He calls the Church at Rome "the root and womb of the Catholic
Church," and complains that the followers of the pseudo-bishop, Fortunatus,
"dare sail to the Chair of Peter and to the chief Church, from which priestly union
has arisen." And again he asks: "Does he who opposes and resists the Church, and
who deserts the Chair of Peter, upon which the Church was founded, trust that he is in the
Church?" 3) St. Jerome was the greatest scriptural scholar of the early ages. He lived from 340 to 420, and because of his scholarship was held in the highest esteem throughout the Church. Yet, in regard to the Roman Pontiff, he shows the submissiveness and docility of a child. Here is a letter written by him from the East to Pope Damasus: "Although your greatness makes me afraid, still your kindness invites. From the priest I entreat safety for the victim, from the shepherd protection for the sheep. Let the glory of the Roman summit withdraw; I am speaking with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the cross. Following no chief but Christ, I am united in communion with your Blessedness, that is, with the Chair of Peter. Upon that rock I know that the Church is built. Whoever eats the lamb outside this house is unholy. Therefore I entreat your Blessedness through the crucified Savior of the world, through the consubstantial 'Trinity, to give me authority by your letters either to abstain from or to declare the hypostases." This letter referred to a point of doctrine, which the great Jerome asked the Roman Pontiff, as the Supreme Shepherd of the flock, to decide authoritatively, promising to accept wholeheartedly the Pope's decision. Three rival Bishops claimed the See of Antioch. How was Jerome to find out who was the lawful Bishop? He passed over the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Constantinople, who were nearer to him, and sought guidance from distant Rome. Consider this extract from a second letter to Pope Damasus: "Here the Church, torn into three factions, hastens to snatch me to itself. . . .
Meanwhile I continue to call out: 'If anyone is united to the Chair of Peter, he is mine.'
Meletius, Vitalis, and Paulinus say that they adhere to you. I could believe if one said
this: Now either two or all are lying. Therefore I implore your Blessedness . . . to
signify by your letters with whom I should be in union in Syria." 4) As Jerome was the brilliant scholar in Scripture, Augustine, Bishop of Hippo,
was the outstanding scholar of that time, and of all time, in theology. Yet he, too,
harkened with childlike docility to the authoritative teaching of the Bishop of Rome, the
Supreme Teacher of the Church of God. Two councils (meetings of Bishops) were held in
Africa to deal with the errors of the Pelagians. (What those errors were you need not at
present inquire-you cannot, my dear friend, absorb all doctrine at once). The decrees of
the councils were sent to Rome, to be submitted to the Pope. This is what the great
Augustine wrote when the answer came from Rome: GENERAL COUNCILS AND THE ROMAN PRIMACY An Ecumenical or General Council is a formal meeting of all the Bishops of the Church,
assembled to define matters of faith and morals or to legislate for the Universal Church.
The manner in which General Councils have been, from the earliest times, convoked,
conducted, and terminated clearly shows that the Bishop of Rome is the Head of the Church,
as successor of St. Peter. I shall draw your attention to a few features of a few
Councils; this will be sufficient, for I must not give you a long lecture on Church
history: 1) The Council of Nice (or Nicaea), a town in Bithynia, was held in the year
325, during the reign of Pope Sylvester. Over this historic assembly of Bishops, most of
whom were from the East, three Papal legates presided, and the formulary of faith
adopted was drawn up by one of them, Hosius, a Spaniard. 2) The Council of Ephesus was held in 431, during the pontificate of Celestine, who was represented by three legates, two Bishops and a priest, as well as by Cyril of Alexandria. In the third session, Philip, though only a priest (one of the Papal legates), spoke thus to the assembled Bishops: "It is doubtful to none, yea, rather has it been known to all ages, that the most
holy and most blessed Peter, the Prince and Head of the Apostles, the pillar of faith,
received from our Lord Jesus Christ the keys of the kingdom, and to him was given power to
bind and loose; who, even until now, and always, both lives and exercises judgment in
his successors. Wherefore, our most blessed Pope, Celestine, Bishop, his successor in
order and holder of his place, has sent us to the Holy Synod as representative of his
person. As, therefore, Nestorius, the author of this new impiety, has not only allowed the
term fixed by the Apostolic See to pass by, but also a much longer period of time,
the sentence on him stands ratified by a decree of all the churches. . . . Wherefore let
Nestorius know that he is cut off from communion with the priesthood of the Catholic
Church." 3) The Council of Chalcedon was held in 451, during the reign of Pope Leo the Great, who sent four legates, two bishops and two priests, to whom he gave very definite instructions. These are the Pope's words to that celebrated Council which, be it noted, was held in the East (Chalcedon was opposite Constantinople, on the Bosphorus): "Let your fraternity consider that in these brethren who have been directed by the Apostolic See I myself preside over the Council. . . Therefore, dearest brethren, reject altogether boldness of disputing, and let the vain unbelief cease of those who err; and let it not -be allowed to defend what it is not lawful to believe." Some six hundred Bishops took part in the Council. Although the vast majority of them
hailed from the East, they harkened with the docility of children to the voice of the
Bishop of Rome conveyed to them through his legates. In the second session the dogmatic
letter of Pope Leo was read. On hearing it, the large gathering of Bishops exclaimed with
one voice and one heart: "This is the faith of Peter; this is the faith of the
Apostles. Peter has spoken through Leo. "
|
