OCR Text |
Show Papacy in the ( I Light of History. More Commentaries on the Extraordinary Argument Alade j By Rev. Air. Love of Helena, in Favor of i the Anglican Church. - r (Written for Jntermountnin Catholic.) To review the numberless fallacies in the address sent by "Historian" and delivered by Rev. W. W. Love at Helena, Hel-ena, Mont., would require a good-sized volume. There is nothing to refute, as the whole address consists of vague assertions. Here is another sample of the reverend gentleman's assertions: "We are, then, a part of the Catholic church. We are not Roman Catholic. No church in Christendom has more persistently thrown aside those doctrines doc-trines and practices which are distinctively dis-tinctively Roman. But having reformed ourselves. having freed ourselves from the errors which were Roman, we have persistently held to all truth and to all practices which are truly Cath- i olic." j The Catholic church is not made up of parts, but forms one dialectic whole. I Any separation, whether by schism or heresy, destroys the unity of the holy, i Catholic and apostolic church. Had the southern states succeeded in the war of the rebellion, could they still claim to be a part of the United States? Sensible Sen-sible people would laugh at their pretentions pre-tentions if they made such a claim, as would an Englishman at the claims of the United States being a part of the British empire after the war of independence. inde-pendence. "We are not Roman Catholic," that is, we do not belong to the church which defined the "Consubstantiality, the Personality, and Hypostatic Union against Amis, Nestorius and Eu-tyches." Eu-tyches." The mission of the Catholic church Is to teach and define -the faith, also to condemn error. It is the function, func-tion, also the duty, of the church of Christ to teach all truth, which all professing pro-fessing Christians are bound to believe. be-lieve. Mr. Love's ("who throws aside those doctrines and practices which are distinctively Roman") creed would be, "I believe what the Catholic church does not teach, because her government govern-ment is based on falsehood." Whom, then, do you obey? The primitive church? But you claim at the same time to be the judge in deciding what the early church taught, and your decision de-cision is that Rome taught errors. But all these errors, save one. the Primacy, have been incorporated in one branch of the established church. Dean Far-far Far-far in 1896 said that "seven thousand of the Anglican clergy are avowed sup-forters sup-forters of the' Romeward movement" that is, they had introduced the "Idolatrous" "Idola-trous" mass, adopted the sacrament of penance, etc. They profess to follow the early church, deciding for themselves them-selves what it taught. In doing so they incurred the displeasure of the Dean of Norwich, who hoped that the low church clergy would "out pray the Ritualists, outwork them, outlive them to the confusion of the wicked seven thousand." Mr. Love cannot assail the position of Catholics inHelena as being less wise than that of his congregation. They know whom they obey, why they obey, and when to obey. They are certain of their orthodoxy, and when their chief pastor preaches Catholic doctrine, they are morally certain it will contain no j heresy. Not so with Mr. Love. He can be confident of orthodoxy only when he implicitly obeys himself. The Catholic bishop of Montana would maintain that English doctors of divinity, di-vinity, English saints and countless faithful English Catholics, who by their zeal, devotion and sanctity, as well as their scholarly attainments, graced the Catholic church from the fifth to the sixteenth century, were better judges of what was primitive Christianity than is Mr. Love. Did the English people enjoy primitive Christianity Chris-tianity only when Henry VIII broke his marital vows, and afterwards denied de-nied the primacy and spiritual jurisdiction jurisdic-tion of the supreme pontiff? One of the functions of Holy Orders is spiritual jurisdiction, which must be legitimately conferred by some spiritual authority. A priest validly ordained or-dained and in high standing, entering the "diocese of Helena, before he exercises ex-ercises any priestly function must obtain ob-tain permission from the bishop of that diocese, who is the successor of the apostles, and was duly appointed by the Holy See, the source and fountain of all spiritual jurisdiction. If Rev. Mr. Love will trace back his jurisdiction jurisdic-tion he will find i, origin to be a simple sim-ple gift of the sovereign or prime minister. min-ister. It is then simply temporal jurisdiction, juris-diction, since it was originally conferred con-ferred by lay authority. No one can give what he has not himself, and no lay person, be he prime minister or sovereign ruler, having in himself no spiritual authority or holy orders, can impart what he never received or possessed. pos-sessed. When we come to the proofs given by Rev. Mr. Love we are constrained to say that "error is harmless where truth is free to combat it." Assuming Assum-ing the role of a dialectician, strange he could not see the fallacy and weakness weak-ness of his own alleged proofs. We give them as they appeared in print: "If you want the proofs of this contention, con-tention, just over to England, the scene of that old Reformation Refor-mation struggle. and you will see that the church of England Eng-land of today exhibits In her institutions institu-tions all the marks of her organic connection con-nection with that national branch of the Catholic church which' was there before the Reformation. It is our church, and not the Roman, which holds all those old cathedrals, which stand there as witnesses of the Catholic Catho-lic past in England. Our church, not the Roman, holds all those rich endowments en-dowments which were given, from time to time, to the English branch of the Catholic church. It is our church, not the Roman, which still holds those great seats of learning, like Oxford and I Cambridge, which were founded and fostered by the English Cathtdit ; ; j church, and are now held by the sara; j church. There are the outward, evi-! evi-! dences. which all may read. They sig ; nify the great fact that ne have. It this long struggle, held our ground, an I are now recognised, in English law, as j j the legal successor to the origina j Catholic church, as it came into Kng land. We hold this position in chart ' i ty and love, we prize it with ail on ' hearts, but there was a time when v had to do it persistently in order to d. t ; . it successfully." "The Church of England exhibits in her institutions all the marks of her organic connection with that national ' branch of the Catholic which was there I b efore the Reformation." Did you find j any such mark in the calendar of the old English church, which gives the j names of about 3uo canonized saints, : half of whom were of royal 'drth? Can- j onization supposes papal jurisdiction. j Monasteries and convents which dotted ' , the island are not "exhibits" of an Anglican An-glican church in pre-Reformatlon i times. These existed before the Conquest Con-quest and down to the time of. Elizabeth. Eliza-beth. Do not Glastonbury. Ely, Ram- i sey and Malmesbury suggest unpleas- j ant memories of pontifical jurisdiction? These religious houses were approved, and often endowed, by the kings in whose kingdom they were founded. 1 They prove the very opposite of what Rev. Mr. Love no doubt sincerely be- lieves to be the case, namely (1) that I the religion of early England was Ro- ! man Catholic: (2) that the early Eng- f lish kings were of the same faith, and i (3) that St. Dunstan, Archbishop of I Canterbury, who reproved King Ed- I ury for his vices, and . his succes- I sor. King Edgar, for the same reason, ' I acknowledged the spiritual jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff. 1 Mr. Love next tells that it is his "church, and not the Roman, which j j holds all those old cathedrals which I stand there as witnesses of the Catho- f lie past of England." Not of the Es- tablished church. St. Dunstan, Thomas a'Becket and John Fisher, archbishops I of Canterbury, were not members of 1 "your church." Christ church and St. I Patrick's cathedral in Dublin are now 1 the property of your church, and, ac- cording to your logic, the people of : ! Dublin, too, must be always members ' . j of your church. To square error with f facts is something which neither Mr. I Love nor "Historian" can ever do. ' j; "It is our church, not the Roman, ' j which still holds those great seats of i f learning like Oxford and Cambridge, which were founded and fostered by the English Catholic church." Duna j ; Scotus the subtle doctor a Franciscan, Francis-can, friar, was a fellow of Merton col- j lege. Oxford. He was chosen professor : of theology at Oxford in luOl. A Fran- . ciKcan friar did not belonj to "our I church." which had no existence in 1301, but to the old English Catholic ' church, which, for a thousand years, was loyal to Rome. His very name. Duns, duner, meant originally a very learned man: its modern meaning ; would apply to Mr. Love's reading of 5 history. Cambridge is also mentioned. John Fisher, born at Beverley. York- ' ; shire, 1459, graduated at Cambridge. 1487. He became vice chancellor of the university in 1501, and professor of divinity in 1503. In 1504 he was ejected chancellor, and in October of the same i year was elected bishop of Rochester. But this professor of divinity and chan- i cellor of Cambridge was a leader of the papal party, opposed to the doctrine of f royal supremacy and the divorce of Henry VIII, was the confessor and chief adviser of Queen Catherine, for all of which he was beheaded on Tower Hill. London, June 22, 1535. In the face of these facts we are told, at this late day. that Oxford and Cambridge are held today by the same church that reckons Duns ScotU3 and John Fisher as its ablest defenders. ! |