The Eighth General Council, held in Constantinople in 869, contains the following solemn profession of faith: "Salvation primarily depends upon guarding the rule of right faith. And since we cannot pa.s.s over the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who says, "Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church," what was said is confirmed by facts, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved immaculate, and holy doctrine has been proclaimed. Not wishing, then, to be separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope to merit to be in the one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, in which See is the full and true solidity of the Christian religion."
This Council clearly declares that _immaculate doctrine_ has always _been preserved and preached in the Roman See_. But how could this be said of her, if the Roman See ever fell into error, and how could that See be preserved from error, if the Roman Pontiffs presiding over it ever erred in faith?
In the Second General Council of Lyons (1274), the Greek Bishops made the following profession of faith: "The holy Roman Church possesses full primacy and princ.i.p.ality over the universal Catholic Church, which primacy, with the plenitude of power, she truly and humbly acknowledges to have received from our Lord Himself, in the person of Blessed Peter, Prince or Head of the Apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is; and as the Roman See, above all others, is bound to defend the truth of faith, so, also, _if any questions on faith arise, they ought to be defined by her judgment_."
Here the Council of Lyons avows that the Roman Pontiffs have the power to determine definitely, and without appeal, any questions of faith which may arise in the Church; in other words, the Council acknowledges them to be the supreme and infallible arbiters of faith.
"We define," says the Council of Florence (1439), at which also were present the Bishops of the Greek and the Latin Church, "we define that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and _the true Vicar of Christ, the Head_ of the whole Church, the Father and Doctor of all Christians, and we declare that to him, in the person of Blessed Peter, was given, by Jesus Christ our Savior, full power to feed, rule and govern the universal Church."
The Pope is here called the _true Vicar_ or representative of Christ in this lower kingdom of His Church militant-that is, the Pope is the organ of our Savior, and speaks His sentiments in faith and morals. But if the Pope erred in faith and morals he would no longer be Christ"s Vicar and true representative. Our minister in England, for instance, would not truly represent our Government if he was not the organ of its sentiments.
The Roman Pontiff is called the _Head_ of the whole Church-that is, the visible Head. Now the Church, which is the Body of Christ, is infallible.
It is, as St. Paul says, "without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing." But how can you suppose an infallible body with a fallible head? How can an erring head conduct a body in the unerring ways of truth and justice?
He is declared by the same Council to be the _Father_ and _Doctor_ of all Christians. How can you expect an unerring family under an erring Father?
The Pope is called the universal teacher or doctor. Teacher of what? Of truth, not of error. Error is to the mind what poison is to the body. You do not call poison food; neither can you call error doctrine. The Pope, as universal teacher, must always give to the faithful not the poisonous food of error, but the sound aliment of pure doctrine.
In fine, the Pope is also styled the _Chief Pilot_ of the Church. It was not without a mysterious significance that our Lord entered Peter"s bark instead of that of any of the other Apostles. This bark, our Lord has pledged Himself, shall never sink nor depart from her true course. How can you imagine a stormproof, never-varying bark under the charge of a fallible Pilot?
But did not the Vatican Council in promulgating the definition of Papal Infallibility in 1870, create a new doctrine of revelation? And did not the Church thereby forfeit her glorious distinction of being always unchangeable in her teaching?
The Council did not create a new creed, but rather confirmed the old one.
It formulated into an article of faith a truth which in every age had been accepted by the Catholic world because it had been implicitly contained in the deposit of revelation.
I may ill.u.s.trate this point by referring again to our Supreme Court. When the Chief Justice, with his colleagues, decides a const.i.tutional question, his decision, though presented in a new shape, cannot be called a new doctrine, because it is based on the letter and spirit of the Const.i.tution.
In like manner, when the Church issues a new dogma of faith, that decree is nothing more than a new form of expressing an old doctrine, because the decision must be drawn from the revealed Word of G.o.d.
The course pursued by the Church, regarding the infallibility of the Pope was practiced by her in reference to the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Our Savior was acknowledged to be G.o.d from the beginning of the Church. Yet His Divinity was not formally defined till the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century, and it would not have been defined even then had it not been denied by Arius. And who will have the presumption to say that the belief in the Divinity of our Lord had its origin in the fourth century?
The following has always been the practice prevailing in the Church of G.o.d from the beginning of her history. Whenever Bishops or National Councils promulgated doctrines or condemned errors they always transmitted their decrees to Rome for confirmation or rejection. What Rome approved, the universal Church approved; what Rome condemned, the Church condemned.
Thus, in the third century, Pope St. Stephen reverses the decision of St.
Cyprian, of Carthage, and of a council of African bishops regarding a question of baptism.
Pope St. Innocent I., in the fifth century, condemns the Pelagian heresy, in reference to which St. Augustine wrote this memorable sentence: "The acts of two councils were sent to the Apostolic See, whence an answer was returned. The _question is ended_. Would to G.o.d that the error also had ceased."
In the fourteenth century Gregory XI. condemns the heresy of Wycliffe.
Pope Leo X., in the sixteenth, anathematizes Luther.
Innocent X., in the seventeenth, at the solicitation of the French Episcopate, condemns the subtle errors of the Jansenists, and in the nineteenth century Pius IX. promulgates the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
Here we find the Popes in various ages condemning heresies and proclaiming doctrines of faith; and they could not in a stronger manner a.s.sert their infallibility than by so defining doctrines of faith and condemning errors. We also behold the Church of Christendom ever saying Amen to the decisions of the Bishops of Rome. Hence it is evident that, in every age, the Church recognized the Popes as infallible teachers.
Every independent government must have a supreme tribunal regularly sitting to interpret its laws, and to decide cases of controversy likely to arise. Thus we have in Washington the Supreme Court of the United States.
Now the Catholic Church is a complete and independent organization, as complete in its spiritual sphere as the United States Government is in the temporal order. The Church has its own laws, its own autonomy and government.
The Church, therefore, like civil powers, must have a permanent and stationary supreme tribunal to interpret its laws and to determine cases of religious controversy.
What const.i.tutes this permanent supreme court of the Church? Does it consist of the Bishops a.s.sembled in General Council? No; because this is not an ordinary but an extraordinary tribunal which meets, on an average, only once in a hundred years.
Is it composed of the Bishops scattered throughout the world? By no means, because it would be impracticable to consult all the Bishops of Christendom upon every issue that might arise in the Church. The poison of error would easily spread through the body of the Church before a decision could be rendered by the Prelates dispersed throughout the globe. The Pope, then, as Head of the Catholic Church, const.i.tutes, with just reason, this supreme tribunal.
And as the office of the Church is to guide men into all truth, and to preserve them from all error, it follows that he who is appointed to watch over the const.i.tution of the Church must be infallible, or exempt from error in his official capacity as judge of faith and morals. The prerogatives of the Pope must be commensurate with the nature of the const.i.tution which he has to uphold. The const.i.tution is Divine and must have a Divinely protected interpreter.
But you will tell me that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be conferred on man. I answer: Has not G.o.d, in former times, clothed His Apostles with powers far more exalted? They were endowed with the gifts of working miracles, of prophecy and inspiration; they were the mouth-piece communicating G.o.d"s revelation, of which the Popes are merely the custodians. If G.o.d could make man the organ of His revealed Word, is it impossible for Him to make man its infallible guardian and interpreter?
For, surely, greater is the Apostle who gives us the inspired Word than the Pope who preserves it from error.
If, indeed, our Saviour had visibly remained among us, no interpreter would be needed, since He would explain His Gospel to us; but as He withdrew His visible presence from us, it was eminently reasonable that He should designate someone to expound for us the meaning of His Word.
A Protestant Bishop, in the course of a sermon against Papal Infallibility, recently used the following language: "For my part, I have an infallible Bible, and this is the only infallibility that I require."
This a.s.sertion, though plausible at first sight, cannot for a moment stand the test of sound criticism.
Let us see, sir, whether an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. Either you are infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is correct or you are not.
If you are infallibly certain, then you a.s.sert for yourself, and of course for every reader of the Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny to the Pope, and which we claim only for him. You make every man his own Pope.
If you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of the whole Bible-and this is a privilege you do not claim-then, I ask, of what use to you is the objective infallibility of the Bible without an infallible interpreter?
If G.o.d, as you a.s.sert, has left no infallible interpreter of His Word, do you not virtually accuse Him of acting unreasonably? for would it not be most unreasonable in Him to have revealed His truth to man without leaving him a means of ascertaining its precise import?
Do you not reduce G.o.d"s word to a bundle of contradictions, like the leaves of the Sybil, which gave forth answers suited to the wishes of every inquirer?
Of the hundred and more Christian sects now existing in this country, does not each take the Bible as its standard of authority, and does not each member draw from it a meaning different from that of his neighbor? Now, in the mind of G.o.d the Scriptures can have but one meaning. Is not this variety of interpretations the bitter fruit of your principle: "An infallible Bible is enough for me," and does it not proclaim the absolute necessity of some authorized and unerring interpreter? You tell me to drink of the water of life; but of what use is this water to my parched lips, since you acknowledge that it may be poisoned in pa.s.sing through the medium of your interpretation?
How satisfactory, on the contrary, and how reasonable is the Catholic teaching on this subject!
According to that system, Christ says to every Christian: Here, my child, is the Word of G.o.d, and with it I leave you an infallible interpreter, who will expound for you its hidden meaning and make clear all its difficulties.
Here are the waters of eternal life, but I have created a channel that will communicate these waters to you in all their sweetness without sediment of error.
Here is the written Const.i.tution of My Church. But I have appointed over it a Supreme Tribunal, in the person of one "to whom I have given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven," who will preserve that Const.i.tution inviolate, and will not permit it to be torn into shreds by the conflicting opinions of men. And thus my children will be one, as I and the Father are one.
Chapter XII.
TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPES.
I. How The Popes Acquired Temporal Power.