ST PATRICK AND THE EARLY BRITISH CHURCH.

Waikato Times, Volume 2641, Issue 2641, 15 June 1889, Page 2 (Supplement)

ST PATRICK AND THE EARLY BRITISH CHURCH.

TO Till! EDITOR. Sni, —I have read very carefully our friend "Junius' " rejoinder to my defence, condensed ami therefore necessarily defective in some points, of the original article of St. Patrick and the Early Church, and the only conclusion I can come to is that it would be well to adhere as far as possible on both sides, to the rule laid down by "Junius" for my guiiance " keep to the simple question in dispute,' , which seems to me to be, was St. Patrick a representative of Roman supremacy or simply a Catholic Missionary Bishop? "Junius" assumes that he represents Catholics, and Protestants ; will he allow me to contradict him flatly ? I am a member of the Holy Catholic Church living in New Zealand, and "Junius" has made the serious mistake of substituting the Pope for the Lord as th« Ifearl of the "Body the Church. I fully agree with "Junius" thut "a bo.lyof men breukin<{ off from the Catliolic Church ami establishing a rival institution of their own cannot justly assume to themselves the name and privileges of the community they l-.avc deserted, and to which they stand opposed," but this is not our position, we—in common with the Orthodox Eastern Church, and all other ancient Churches of the first four centuries, and their surviving representatives to this day—assert unflinchingly our Catholicity while resisting the attempt of the Roman Bishop to nraurp the authority of Him whom we aloue, and in common, recognise as Master and Lord. Refusing, therefore, to allow that the Roman Church* alone is the Catholic Church, because such mi assertion is contradicted by Holy Scripture, the Fathers of the Church Catholic — price Junius —and the inexorable logic of facts in the past history and present condition of the Church. I contend that he has not brought forward its yet oiio atom of evidence that St. Patrick ever had any connection whatever with the Roman Church or it* Bishop, whom I recognise with all due inspect as Patriarch of the Latin Church, but repudiate as eolo Lord over God's heritage. Kindly allow me, Sir, to answer seriatim, and as briefly as possible tbo various accusations nnd questions of " Junius' " last letter. My " evidence is totally α-b variance with facts." I fail to see anything iu his letter to tmpport this strong assertion. I gavo my authorities for tho evidence I called and do not find them questioned. " Juuius " iu several places puts into my mouth things that I never said, and proceeds to demolish those statements, but I disclaim the paternity, they are his, not mine. My " evidence is also irrevehmt (sio) to the question at issue :" where ? I passed over much of '' Junius' " former letter as being irrelevant, nnd confined myself, a3 I thought, to the bare question at issue. As to the Fathers they are surely invaluable witnesses, and how their testimony could be "inadmissible " I fail to see. I did not fill your columns, for I only quoted one and I cannot And "Junius'" Fathers who showed that " the Church of Rome had all the Christian Churches under her ecclesiastical rule" but "that they were free in their ecclesiastical government," surely thero is a contradiction of tnrins here, one does not know how to answer seriously such reasoning - . The Eastern and Western Churches were at the time referred to iu union, but they did not acknowledge the Roniau Pontiff as their superior ; but, as occasion, rose from time to time, successfully resisted all attempts made to exercise such authority. St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, A.n. 21S, who was tho most inclined of the early Fathers to acknowledge in Rome a centre of unity for the Church, set the example of successful resistance to Pope Stephen's attempts to control other Catholic Bishops, and in opening , a great Council of African Bishops, referring , to a threat of excommunication.' on the par.t of Stephcu in default of submission to his (the Pope V) authority, said, "For none of us makes himself to bo a bishop of "bishops, or tries tyrannically to frighten his colleagues into the necessity of obeying, since every bishop, in virtue of his own liberty and power, is master of Ids own will, and is as incapable of being , judged by another as ho is of judgiug himself; but let us wait for the universal judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who aloue lias tho power of putting us over tho goJ vernment of His Church and of judging us for our actions." The General Councils of the Church never acknowledged tho Roman supremacy, the famous Siirdican Council being really only a local and not a general one ; and the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon in tho year '151, iustea i of being yivun !>y Li ■) t,be Gvejt, were so offensive to him, in ref'.^'iig - '.r.y • primacy save that of honour as the

ancient Imperial city to Ronm, that ho presumed to talk of annulling them, but the threat was calmly ignored by the Eastern Oburoh. "Junius" is in error in saying that Mietinel Oarularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, broke away from the Popo in a.o. 1055 ; the Popo Leo IX. had oxcommuuicatcd him in a.i>. 1053. It is useless to endeavour to rightly divide the blame in these mutters, but one may bo pardoned for sayins that the arrogant assumption, by one Bishop (the Pope), of infallible and supreme authority has bßon the chief cau*e of tho present divided state of the Catholic Church. Pope Gregory tho Groat, I know, claimed jurisdiction over tho British Church, but my former letter will chow that the Bishops of St. Patriok's foundation refused to acknowledge it, a utransre course if Patrick himself had derived lii-i authority from Rome. "Junius" statement that the great Eastern and Western schism is hot on account of doctrine or papal supremacy i* simply untrue ; the Easterns accuse the Westerns of altering doctrine by adding , to the Pope the patriarchal authority of Constantinople, Antioch, &c. I did not contend that there were two district, branches of Holy Church in those early days, they were one in Faith and doctrine, but they worn not one in language and customs. The inscription, as you will see by referring to iny letter, is .1 mere sido prop that might be taken away without disturbing the stability of the structure. "Junius' " arguments are more assumptions, I deny that St. Peter had any other supremacy than that of " Primus inter Pares," and L dp not find any evidence that, the early Fathers and Great Councils acknowledged any such jurisdiction, and it is extremely doubtful whether Peter had any hand in founding tho Roman Church, which seems rather, the work of, Paul, who did " not build upon another man's foundation,,' (Epistle Romans XV chap.2o verse.) I- did not pretond that modern Protestantism formed any part of the one Holy and Apostolic Church. '' Junius " should not make f.-ilne statements. I am not, in his sense of the word, a Protestant, nor is our Church, though we protest aorninst J worldly imperialism in tho divine kingdom of Christ. As to Roman efforts to re-unite the East and West, the excommunication of Popo Leo IX is still in force, and an insuperable bar to re-union. I do not see anything in " Junius' " letter to prove that the supermaey of Rome was acknowled in the East during the first five centuries. If that superinaoy meaus the right to define 'swl control in tho Churoh, such an idea is simply absurd in , the face of the witness of history and the auuieut Fathers. If friend "Junius" will go to a Greek Church, as I hare often doue, he will find himself no better ablo to follow the service than ho would bo in an Anglican Church. As to the Eucharist, the whole Catholic Church, including tho English, believes in tho real preeeuue, but the Roman alone has materialised it into tho idea of transnbstantifitioa. The Greek Church, like our own, does not receive that dogma, in spite of " Junius' " assertion. I await '* Junius'" quotations on tho Liturgies question. True Christianity was assailed liy "Junius' , when ho claimed, as ho did, that only Romans were Christians. I did not. say that the English office was a universal one ; the Roman certainly is not, and never was. As to "Junius' " challenge re the mass, my last sentence answer-" practically all his questions. Tho Litunjy of the Holy Eucharist was, and is yet universal, but the Itoinan mass is not the original, or sola form thereof, the mass dilfers from other ancient Catholic Litanies, in that it involves the disputed transubstantiation shown by the elevation of the host and the withholding of the cup from tho laity, so that wo claim that it is imperfect both by addition and substruction. The withholding of the cup, and administering in one species only, was unknown for a thousand years after Christ founded his Church, and tr.uisttbstantiation was first hinted at by the mouk Paschasiua, A.i>., Sol, and finally made an Article of Faith in the Roman Church at the Council of Constanc3, a.0., 1210. So that my reply to "Junius'" question is: that the first celebrant of the mass, as now understood in the Roman Catholic Church, was Popa Innocent 111. The orthodox pastors who resisted this novelty were, and are, all those who an> not of the Roman obedience i.e. the Greek and Anglican branches of the Great Vine, The name of its abettors is Romanists, as distinguished from Catho lies. No nations have as yet received tho mass, except those who use Latin in their services. There has been no General Council since the innovation arose, but all true Catholics wait for such General Councils to settle disputed points. Wo have not claimed for the Anglican office the position that "Junius" claims for the Roman mass, therefore it needs no orthodox Father to defend such claims ; and I fearlessly assert that the Anglican office fairly represents that Holy Eacharist that has been celebrated for English members of the Holy Church, probably since the time of St. Paul, tho Apostle. The Roman mas 3 \va3 not introduced into England jintil the reign of Queen Elizabeth. "Junius'" error lies in supposing that the present Roman Mass alone represents the aucient Catholic Eucharist, and so long as he remains in such a narrow condition of mind it is impossible for him to grasp the idea of the Catholic Church aiul her worship. As I have not, I hope, " determined again-t that which [ know, etc.," I trust that "Junius" will still allow mo to rank among reasonable beings. I have U'it. committed a grave error iu denying the exclusive right of the Roman Church to tho titlo Catholic, that cannot bo Catholic that is tho exclusive property uf a section only ; and the whole ancient Church, I have nothing to do with modern sects, has an indefeasible claim to that which she everywhere instructs her members to declare "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church." In conclusion, Sir, may I say that I havi? written tho above under the pressure of increased professional duties aud much bodily infirmity, so that I feel that it is not fully .adequate to tho gravity of the subject; yet, I trust "Junius" and your clientele may not find it uninteresting or so much beside the mark as "' Junius " insinuates that iny last letter was. My former theses seem to be still unanswered; will " Junius," out of consideration for your space, and your readers' patience, take one point at issuo at a time, and not wander over the whole field of practical ecclesiolgy and dogmatic theology, dragging us all, somewhatjunwillingly, after him. For his kindly remarks on my former criticism I thank him, aud remain, Sir.—Yours faithfully. Julius.