LETTER TO THE EDITOR.

Southland Times, Issue 1614, 2 August 1872, Page 3

LETTER TO THE EDITOR.

THE POPE 13 VISIBLE HEAD OF THE CHURCH. Sib. — The letter of your correspondent, " A Catholic, hnt not a Papist- " in your publication of T nly 2fith, ia all verbiage— vox et preferra nihil ' In a religious controversy, I think, the public do not want to see how long a letter any of the disputants is able to write, but h w much argument, sense, and truth his letter may contain. Your correspondent wants me to be going over the same groun.! continually, and will hare me to prove propisitio s that I have already proved, some of which I have substantiated by quotations from the most eminent of Protestant writers, and even from the first " Reformers" themselves, giving their ipsissima verba, together with the page of the book for him to put hi 3 finger on. Again, when I put a question of importance to him he does not even try to answer it, as for example, mv queries relative to Protestant " observances," for which there is no warrant in the Bible, to come of which the Bible appears directly opposed, and none of which can be accounted for by the Bible only. What am I to do with a man unwilling to come to the point, or to answer a question, but very willing to put questions ? Well, really, I see no alternative but to answer his questions. Moreover, in order to keep him to the point, I will confine myself, regardless of rhetoric ar.d " loftiness "of speech," to the eloquence of fac* and argument. I intend to commence with the very first objection he puts in his very first letter against me, and thus answer and solve them nil, j one after the other. Before doing so I wish to refer to a few propositions in his letter of 26th inst., which are intended for argument, but so very absurd that 'twould be a pity to allow them to pass unnoticed. Your correspondent is hurt because I said " I inferred from the -weakness of his intellect that he must be a fool" — a hard saying to be sure, perhaps too true, but certainly not illogical, for the fact is your correspondent is weakest where he thinks ne is strongest, as witness the following, O ye people ! viz., he says | " I accuse him of bringing a charge of poverty j against the ' Catholic church,' doubting my sanity in consequence. No wonder! I never thought of doing anything so stupid." The sentence immediately following that one is this, viz., "If ' the church' has the knack of doing one thing better than another, it is that of saying, ' Your money or your life.' " Does he mean what he says when he uses the words " the church ;" if so, is not that stupid ? Or what on earth is the meaning of the contradiction ? It appears he is not only contradiction by name, but also by nature. If he means by " the church," " papal sway," I must confess he is getting a little polite, and I, as a Catholic priest, acknowledge the compliment paid by him, at least in words, viz., " the church." I may also add that he has taken great care not to provoke a repetition of, nor, in fact, to allude to, my proofs that the Roman Catholic church is " the Church," and that there never was another. But the blunder of blunders made by your correspondent is the following query, which he puts by way of a good hit, viz., " Was it (the Bible) | •written by inspiration of God's Spirit, or of | ' the church,' which did not exist for centuries after it was written ?" Well Ido hope that even the denomination he belongs to himself has faith enough in it to be shocked at such an assertion. I need not inform the public that no infidel saying ever aimed more directly at the very root of Christianity itself. I thought Christ did establish a " church" when he was on earth, " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," &c. Now as I cannot very well do two things at once, nor answer many questions at the same time, I shall leave the rest of his letter in the hands of the public, whilst I begin at the beginning, as I stated at the commencement of this letter I would do, and answer all his queri's one by one, to the satisfaction, I hope, of the public, and. I trust in God, to the conversion of your correspondent !iml othei-3. Nous allons commence)'. In his first letter, which appeared in your issue of July 2nd, your correspondent says, " Tho entrance of the Word into the minds of a priest-ridden people, means the exit of Popery." Well I think my letter headed " The Catholic Church and the Bible" was a very fair reply, showing him that only for Popery (as he calls the Roman Catholic church), we should have no Bible at all, and as to the Protestant Bible, such as it ir — that Protestants themselves cannot account for it — not even for its existence, in any •way whatever, save through the Church. His next objection in order is, " There is no Pope in the Christianity of the Bible." He means, I presume, there is no " visible head of the church." NOW I proceed to prove there i.". Whereas Christ Baid to Peter (Mart. xvi. 19) "And I will give up to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven ; and whatsoever thon shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed in heaven." "No, no, Christ," say the Protestant and Presbyterian, " you gave no such keys, or particular powers to Peter, any more than you gave to the rest of the Apostles, for if you had given him such a particular power, Mr Fulke would not have said (in his ' Confutation ot the Papists' Quarrels,' p. 4) that ' Many of the ancient Fathers were deceived to think more of Peter's prerogative, and of the Pope of Rome's dignity, than by the Word of God was given to either of them.' " Indeed it clearly appears by these words of Mr Fulke that the holy Fathers of the primitive church have not been of your correspondent's religion, which affirms the contrary of what they openly professed and taught concerning St. Peter and the Pope of Rome's supremacy ; and I think it is safer for me in conscience to prefer these holy Fathers' judgments herein, to your ministers' new notious, which are warranted by no Scripturo or antiquity. As for their evasion or subterfuge, alleging that the rest of the Apostles had as much power as St. Peter, I answer that we acknowledge the power of loosing and binding sins was given to all the Apostles, after Christ had spoken the former words to St. Peter, as is evident, John xx. 28. But we say that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were never said in Scripture to be given to any of the Apostles, except to St. Peter only, and as we lawfully infer that he is the commander-in-chief of the army to whom the keys of the city are delivered at his entrance iuto the town, and that he is the chief officer of a castle or family, to whom the master commits the keys, even so we may as lawfully infer that Christ, by telling St. Peter that " He would give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven," meant to confer on him a superior degree of power and dignity, which would not be common to the rest of the Apostles ; and you may plainly discover the truth of this by these other words of Christ — " 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" (Matt. xvi. 17-18). I may hero remark some Protestants are very fond of displaying their laming, and their profound and critical knowledge of the Greek language by asserting that it was not a rock (Petros), but a stone (Pctra), that Christ denominated St. Peter, making the sentence run, " Thou art a stone, and upon this rock I will build," &c. Blessings on themselves and their laming! but it unluckily happens that it was not in Greek (which the Jews didn't understand), but in Syriac (which was the language then spoken by them), that our Saviour addressed St. Peter, and the word He made use of was Cephas (a rock), which has no change of gender. So the meaning, then, evidently is — " I will build my Church upon your firm and true faith, not only for your own sake, but also for the perpetual good of the Church ; " and lest people should imagine that this building of the Church on St. Peter's faith should be overthrown at St. Peter's death, hence Christ declares that Himself had prayed to His heavenly Father that " his faith should not fail" — a prayer, be it remembered, which we do not find He offered for the other

1 Apostles. You will find the prayer, Luke xxii. 32, and as that faith was to continue in " the Church," built upon the Apostles and upon a " Rock," in which boMi " sheep and hmbs were to be fe 1 ," so Peter's supremacy and charge were to be transmitted to his lawful successors, because the office of a pnstor is an ordinary find perpetual office, and so lniij> ns there are lambs and sheep to be fed. so long there must be a pastor to feed and fo-rm them. The chair of Moses was always filled by the successors of Moses till the coming of Christ even so the chair of Peter was to be furnished with successors until the co'nina: of Christ at the day of judgment. St. Peter succeeded Christ upon earth even as Aaron succeeded Moses. T>vit. viii. And Linus succeeded VeUr, even ns Eleazar s-ucreeried Aaron, &c. ; so that, as G-od had provided His Church successively in the old law with hish prie-ts, who, for the personal wickedness of any of them, di 1 n^t cca'e to govern His Church by them, even so He hath provided Hia Church, in the law of grace, with j such high priests ns shoull have (by his bounty) , | many advantages above the hi^h priests of the j old law — being only figurative of the new — and I it cannot be truly said that this derogates from i Christ's honor or" priesthood, for though Christ j Himself is said to be the foundation and chief I corner stone, yet, we see from Scripture, that He did not think it unfit to communicate the title of foundation to others, as is evident from the | following words of St. Paul : " We are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, Ephes. ii. 20. And as it therefore does not derogate from Christ's honor that He communicated the aforesaid title of foundation to others, so it does not derogate from His honor (inasmuch as He is said to be the chief priest) that He communicated the title of being chief priest to others ; and as it does not derogate from Christ's honor, inasmuch as he is said to be the King and Supreme Lord of the universe, that He haa given the title of King to others of subordinate power, whom God thought necessary for the proper government of His own people, and therefore obliged His people to obey them. 1 Peter ii. 13. And even bo it does not derogate from Christ's honor (inasmuch as He is said to be the supreme head of the Church) that He has given the title of being His own vicar-general and supreme head of the "Church upon earth, in spiritual affairs, to St. Peter, and to his lawful successors, whom He thought necessary for the proper government of Hia Church, and therefore He obliged us to obey them — a fortiori — " not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake." Your correspondent will see by these examples how falsely his ministers infer "that the true Church of Christ ought not to have a supreme pastor upon earth, because Christ Himself is said to be her chief priest and chief corner-stone. Scripture says (John ixi. 15. &c.) that " Christ gave in charge to Peter, to feed His lambs and sheep." " No, no"— say the Protestant and Presbyterian — " Christ gave Peter no more charge to feed His lambs and sheep than He gave to every one of the rest of the Apostles, as our ministers affirm." Where is the Scripture ' for that interpretation ? None ; and on this as well as on infinite other occasions, they disregard their Bible, and take the word of the "Reformers," just, because they happen to speak against the Catholic Church. Well, if that is not taking the word of man with a vengeance, to do which, Protestants suy, is against their principles ! In the meantime, I shall advert to what Christ says here of Peter : " Lovest thou me more than these ? " (John xxi. 15.) for it is a sign that He then intended to give him for that greater love, some exalted dignity which would not be common to the rest of the Apostles, whom then He excluded, by speaking thrice in the same terms to Peter in the singular number ; and after Peter gave Him an affirmative answer at each time, then Christ spoke, and gave him the charge of feeding both His lambs and sheep, which charge Btill remains, because, as I have already said, the office of pastor is ordinary and perpetual, and so long as there are lambs and sheep to be fed, so long there must be the pastor to shepherd and | govern them, which bt cause Peter could not perform in person those many hundred years past, there must needs be some other lawful successor to execute this office in his place ; for this high pastorship upon earth was chiefly instituted by Christ through the paternal care and love He had for His Church, which He intended should stand " for ever" according to this manner of government He had established in Cephas. Moreover, the interpretation or translation of Cephas by the word "stone," (as we find it in the Protestant version of the Bible,) is not only incorrect, but stultifies Christ Himself, by showing Him to have delivered an illogical discourse — to have spoken a sentence which is not conclusive, and uttered words without a meaning, for, where is the connection by, or what the force of, the conjunction and (in their translation), " Thou art a stone, and upon this rock I will build?" One word about the sacrifice of the mass. If your correspondent and his fellow-Pro-testants are correct in their opinion of the mass, then up to the time Luther commenced to establish the Protestant religion, the entire Church must have been in a state of profound idolatry. How disfigured then the " spotless j spouse" of Christ ! and how strange that Christ Himself should be with her, as He said He would be " for ever ! " Now there is no getting out of that dilemma, for all priests have said mass, even Martin Luther. An integral part of the ordi-nation-service is the young priest's consecrating, together with the bishop who ordains him. Sacrifice and priest are then correlative terms, and that of the mass an ordinary as well as an essential function. Now where were the Protestants all this time — for more than fifteen hundred years — while ' the Church," with all her priests, was worshipping " a wafer," as jour correspondent designates it ? They must have been in " nubibus." That it is in the nature of fallen man to involve the fellow-creature in ruin, is a truism, but that so many innocent people should be fooled and led astray by men who, having left the Church of God and their consciences as well, have gone astray themselves, and that thus the innocent perish with the guilty, is a calamity over which the angels might weep. Nothing is more clear to reason than that God cannot be the author of different religions ; for, being the Eternal Truth, He cannot reveal contradictory doctrines, and, being at the same time the Eternal Wisdom and the God of Peace, Ha cannot establish a kingdom divided against itself. The advantage and even necessity of having a living, speaking authority for preserving peace and order in every society, is too obvious to be called in question. God never left His people in the old law without authorised interpreters of His holy ordinances, and sure guides to salvation ; and can we suppose that our Divine Redeemer, when He promulgated His heavenly laws, would leave them as a stumbling- block and " apple of discord" to be interpreted by every man according to his own fallible judgment ? For no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, '£■ Peter i. 20. &c, which text, as well as the j following, plainly shows that the Scriptures are ' not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the Holy Scriptures was written by men inspired of the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church, therefore they are not to be interpreted but' by the Spirit of God, which He sent acj cording to promise to " abide with her for ever." That has left then an unerring tribunal to I explain and " define" revealed doctrine, enjoining implicit obedience to its decisions, under pain of eternal reprobation, is evident, and that that tribunal is and can be no other than the Catholic Church, is equally manifest, for, all Christians believe that Christianity, " tho faith once delivered to the saints," superseded the old law, and that it is a perfect and consequently unreformable development of a " system" of which Judaism is only a typical foreshadowing. Under the old law, the Church had absolute and undisputed authoi rity to interpret the meaning of, and decide upon, every controverted passage in the Scriptures, and the Jews were bound under pain of death un- ! hesitatingly to submit to her decisions. (Deut. xvii.) But our Divine Redeemer conferred upon His Church, " built upon a rock," far higher and I

more important powers than the Church under the old Jaw (being only typical) did or could possess : " Go, therefore, teach all nations, and behol 1 I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. He that heareth you, htvareth me, and he that will not hear you, let him be unto thee as a beatheu or a publicin." — Yours &c., J. Card ex. St. Mary's, July 27th.