It is a simple fact of history that in establishing one of the most important dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, the infallibility of the pope defined by the Vatican Council held in 1870, this rule of absolutely following "the unanimous consent of the Fathers" was frankly ignored. An unprejudiced study of the proceedings of this council indicates clearly that it was the determined purpose of the then reigning pope, Pius IX, to have the council formally ratify the definition of infallibility which he and some of his advisers had already agreed upon. In the furtherance of this plan, when it became evident that there was a rising tide of opposition to this program, as was shown by some of the speeches made, the pope arbitrarily closed the debate and pressed the question to a vote. Among the speeches prepared but not delivered was one by Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis. The original speech in Latin was printed in 1871 in "Documenta ad Illustrandum Concilium Vaticanum Anni 1870" ("Documents Relating to the Famous Vatican Council of the Year 1870"), collected by Dr. Johann Friedrich, and a translation of it appeared in "An Inside View of the Vatican Council," from which the following extract is given:
"The primacy of the Roman pontiff, both in honor and in jurisdiction, in the universal church, I acknowledge. Primacy, I say, not lordship. But that the primacy is vested in him as the successor of Peter, all the tradition of the church testifies, from the beginning. And on the sole strength of this testimony I accept it as an absolutely certain principle and dogma of faith. But that it can be proved from the words of Holy Scripture, by anyone who would be faithful to the rule of interpretation prescribed to us in that profession of faith [the creed of Pope Pius IV] which we have uttered at the opening of this council, and so often on other occasions, I deny."'
In proof of this very unusual assertion, Archbishop Kenrick then cites the facts concerning the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 by the so-called Fathers of the church, showing that, instead of being unanimous that the church was built on Peter, they held as follows:
1. Seventeen claimed that "the church was built on Peter."
2. Eight maintained that "the church was built on all the apostles."
3. Forty-four held that "the words, 'on this rock,' etc., are to be understood of the faith which Peter had professed—that this faith, this profession of faith, by which we believe Christ to be the Son of the living God, is the everlasting and immovable foundation of the church."
4. Sixteen affirmed that "the words, 'on this rock,' etc., are to be understood of that rock which Peter had confessed, that is, Christ,—that the church was built on Christ."
5. "The fifth interpretation of the Fathers understands by the name of the rock, the faithful themselves, who, believing Christ to be the Son of God, are constituted living stones out of which the church is built."
The declaration that no interpretation of the Scriptures was to be received which was contrary to "the unanimous consent of the Fathers," was the cause of some embarrassment to Roman Catholic interpreters, inasmuch as the Protestants affirmed that they had gone contrary to the doctrine of the ancient church. It seemed necessary to answer this charge, and this was done at the last session of the Council of Trent by declaring that tradition was in reality the voice of the church, whether the ancient or the modern church. The following extract deals with this question:
"The council agreed fully with Ambrosius Pelargus, that under no condition should the Protestants be allowed to triumph by saying that the council had condemned the doctrine of the ancient church. But this practice caused untold tribulation without serving as a safeguard. For this business, to be sure, 'almost divine prudence' was requisite—which was indeed awarded to the council on the sixteenth of March, 1562, by the Spanish ambassador. Really they could scarcely find their way in the many labyrinthian passages of an older and a newer comprehension of tradition, which were constantly crossing and recrossing each other. But even in this they were destined to succeed. Finally, at the last opening on the eighteenth of January, 1563, their last scruple was set aside; the archbishop of Rheggio made a speech in which he openly declared that tradition stood above Scripture. The authority of the church could therefore not be bound by the authority of the Scriptures, because the church had changed Sabbath into Sunday, not by the command of Christ, but by its own authority. With this, to be sure, the last illusion was destroyed, and it was declared that tradition does not signify antiquity, but continual inspiration."
The ease with which Roman Catholic writers can, if necessary, reverse themselves when their church authoritatively defines a new doctrine, is shown by the following facts: One of the Roman Catholic catechisms which has had a wide circulation on both sides of the Atlantic is that by Stephen Keenan. Before the dogma of infallibility was defined by the Vatican Council in 1870, this catechism contained the following question and answer, as quoted in "The Infallibility of the Church:"
"Q. Must not Catholics believe the pope in himself to be infallible?
"A. This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the church."
Immediately after 1870 this question and its answer disappeared from this catechism without a word of explanation. "It is, therefore, impossible now to maintain that the faith of the Church of Rome never changes, when it is notorious that there is something which is now part of her faith which those who had a good right to know declared was no part of her faith"4 before 1870.
Added Article of Faith
Further evidence that a doctrine of tremendous significance has been added to the Roman Catholic creed is furnished by the following statement made by John B. Purcell, bishop of Cincinnati, in his debate with Alexander Campbell, January 13-21, 1837:
"Appeals were lodged before the bishop of Rome, though he was not believed to be infallible. Neither is he now. No enlightened Catholic holds the pope's infallibility to be an article of faith. I do not; and none of my brethren, that I know of, do. The Catholic believes the pope, as a man, to be as liable to error as almost any other man in the universe. Man is manTand__ no- man____ is int - , • • octrine or morals. Many of the popes have sinned, and some of them have been bad men."
It is plain that what was not regarded as an article of faith and was not believed in this country in 1837 is now binding upon all Roman Catholics.
That there is a modernistic tendency even in the Roman Catholic Church is clear to those who compare interpretations formerly given to some authoritative pronouncements with those given today. Here is a suggestive illustration. In the papal bull, "Unam Sanctam," issued in 1302 by Boniface VIII in his effort to maintain the temporal power of the pope in his conflict with Philip the Fair of France, he declared:
"That in her [the church] and within her power are the two swords, we are taught in the Gospels, namely, the spiritual sword and the temporal sword. For when the apostle said, 'Lo here—that is, in the church—are two swords,' the Lord did not reply to the apostles, 'It is too much,' but 'It is enough.' . . . Therefore, both are in the power of the church, namely, the spiritual sword and the temporal sword, the latter to be used for the church, the former by the church; the former by the hand of the priest, the latter by the hand of princes and kings, but at the nod and instance of the priest, The one sword must of necessity be subject to the other, and the temporal power to the spiritual power. . . . Truth being the witness, the spiritual power has the function of establishing the temporal power and sitting in judgment on it if it should prove not to be good." (Omissions theirs.)
In his speech, to which reference has already been made in this article, Archbishop Kenrick made a rather striking comment upon these statements by the pope, a portion of which I will quote:
"No man can deny that the purpose of Boni-face in that bull was to claim for himself temporal power, and to propound this opinion to the faithful, to be held under pain of damnation. No man can deny that the words of the bull were received in this sense by all then living. . . . But at the present time the opinion so solemnly enunciated in that bull is repudiated by all, not excepting even the most ardent advocates of papal infallibility."
A more recent interpreter of this utterance by Boniface VIII handles it a bit more diplomatically, and perhaps with special reference to American readers, in these words:
"Even if Boniface had intended to assert that the church has direct power over the state, this declaration would not be defined dogma, since the only dogmatic definition in the bull is the statement, 'that all must give due religious obedience to the pope.' "
From what has now been presented it is clear that Roman Catholics concede no more authority to the Holy Scriptures than do the radical Modernists, although at the same time they nominally profess to believe that they are "the word of God." Both Catholics and Modernists pri-ce—th-e authoriTy of man "above the authority of God, and in doing so they "worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator," which is the very essence of idolatry.
Washington, D. C.
1 "An Inside View of the Vatican Council," pp. 106, 107, edited by Leonard Woolsey Bacon, American Tract Society, New York.
2 Dr. J. H. Holtzman, "Canon and Tradition," p. 263.
3 Salmon, "Infallibility of the Church," p. 26, second edition. John Murray, London.
4 Id., p. 27.
5 "A Debate on the Roman Catholic Religion," p. 23, edition 1837. J. A. James & Co., Cincinnati, Ohio.
6 Translation from "Our Fathers' Faith and Ours," Philip Schaff, pp. 667, 668. G. P. Putman's Sons, New York.
7 "An Inside View of the Vatican Council," p. 126.
8 "The State and the Church," p. 48, by John A. Ryan, Professor of Moral Theology at the Catholic University of America, and Moorhouse Millar, S. J. Macmillan & Co., New York.
