OCR Text |
Show ( f :J I ; Papacy in the Light of History Review of the Four Great Evils of the Day Mentioned by Cardinal Manning Parting Reference to Rev. Love Concluding Remarks. (Written for Intermoun'nin Catholic) The four great evils of the day, wrote Cardinal Manning, are "(1) th.; revolt of the intellect against God:: (-) the revolt of the will against God: :i the revolt of society from God; and (1) the spirit of antichrist." The Idea of creator and creature convpys God's sovereignty over man's intellect, will, also society and the world. Any revolt re-volt against legitimate authority .'! church or state is always productive of evil. The source of all schism originated orig-inated in opposition to the authority of the pope to teach and govern. The very constitution of the church, as well as that of the state, demands obedience obe-dience to legitimate authority. To the church, which Christ built on Peter, obedience to Its teaching was the fundamental fun-damental principle. "He that will not hear the church, let him be as .a heathen." The authority of the Roman pontiff j has been held, in all ages, as supreme : and infallible in defining articles of j faith as found in the Bible. To this I original deposit of faith he neither adds nor takes away anything. Whep a question, of any particular doctrine was discussed, the church, in her capacity ca-pacity as judge, defined the true faith, condemning at the same time the errors er-rors that were opposed to the defined, articles of faith. The history of Christianity without the pope as a supreme su-preme governor and infallible . teacher would be inexplicable. He is the central cen-tral fact around whom the entire history his-tory of the church revolves. No council coun-cil of bishops, however numerous, unless un-less convoked by his authority, was held to be ecumenical! Even to this day the Greek schismatics admit that they cannot hold an ecumenical coun-cal. coun-cal. as they have not the bishops of Rome to preside over it. The objection of Rev. Mr. Love that Rome claimed everything has been continually urged since the end of th?. second century. Dr. Dollinger, in one of his-works written Cefore he took exceptions ex-ceptions to the decrees of the Vatican council, proves that the papacy was fully constituted and universally recognized rec-ognized at the end of the second century. cen-tury. Its existence being historically evident at so early period, and from writers who were opposed to it, what follows? It must be a part of the original orig-inal constitution of the church. It could not, be usurped before the conversion con-version of Constantine, as the Roman empire was hostile to Christianity, and to suppose ttoat the civil power was in league with the bishop of Rome in the usurpation is as absurd as it is unhistorical. Under Constantine the jseat of empire was transferred from , ' Rome t.i C.ntanti;iopie, the bishop ' 'or the latter set- u;-s exalted and bc-' bc-' c,i!,ie patriarch of Constantinople, yet ; no t in i t was made to exalt him over th; I'islmp oi' Rome, whose supremacy ; an 1 universal jurisdiction was a-- knou'ledKed throiighottt Christendom. i Papal authority means supremacy t ; ov i nil ecclesiastics, if usurped, why j j did noi the patriarchs and bishops, in ! ; iniib-vai times, resist the encroachment Ion tin ir rights': iVewing the human sid- of the church, it may bo presumed j that each bishop would he as much in-i in-i eiin.-rl to resist papal usurpation as, the ! I pope wouid he in establisiifng it. (nice more, before concluding the ' subject of the papacy, it may be a.ked, j How explain the universal tradition of i the church from h- r infancy, that j I Christ gave Peter the supremacy, and ' i that it has survived for twenty centti- j ries in his successors, the bishops of Rome? All writers, as far back as we j go. in treating of th Catholic church ; make some reference to the bishop of j Rome, giving him preced"r.:e of all other ecclesiastics, and the acknow,'- edged chief pastor of the church. In , all general councils he presided, and ! I only when he authoritatively spoke, j were such councils recognized. At ' f ? ' Chalcedon, when the tome of Pope Leo i j was read, the fathers exclaimed: "Pe- I ter has spoken by the mouth of Leo." J All Christian writers from the second ' I century down have, when treating of s the prerogatives of the Roman pontiff, ; . invariably proclaimed his supremacy . and represented him as exercising unl- f versal Jurisdiction, not only over the ' I clergy of his own diocese, but over the I entire episcopacy. Any supposition ' ? that the pope usurped, in spite of all I opposition, civil and ecclesiastical, the f primacy compelled bishops, priests and i f laity to recognize it, to yield to it and to retain down to the present, is the if most aosurn ineory tnat couia De ad- i I vanced. The personal conduct of a J few popes is sometimes brought for- , ' ward as an argument. As well bring J the betrayal of Judas as an argument I against the divinity of the Christian f religion. Scandals, in all ages, have 1 I 1 arisen. That such would be the case, if Christ predicted. That the church sur- j . 1 vived nil such, entered the twentieth ! t century as fresh and vigirous as she ' I was in the first, proves her not to be j i a mere human instuutioon, but the j same authoritative teaching church, j s which defines absolutely and with cer- 1 f tainty her creed, and which, according ' to the promise of her divine founder, ; . "will last to the consummation of the. ' world." (The Epd.) - j- |