The American Sentinel 9
September 27, 1894
“Editorial” American Sentinel 9, 38, pp. 297, 298.
“THE infallibility of the pope”—where does it come from? and how does he get it? AMS September 27, 1894, page 297.1
THE claim of infallibility on the part of the pope, is but the plain and logical consequence of the other claims made on his part. AMS September 27, 1894, page 297.2
THE claim of the headship of the Church of Christ, or of “the regency of God on earth,” as is claimed by the pope and for the pope—either of these logically demands that he shall claim infallibility also. AMS September 27, 1894, page 297.3
BUT as we have seen, the claim of any such thing as a regency of God is supremely ridiculous and blasphemous; and the claim that any other than “Christ himself” is head of his body, is preposterous and supremely immoral; so the claim of infallibility on the part of any man anywhere is the embodiment of all these. AMS September 27, 1894, page 297.4
LET us examine this claim of the infallibility of the pope. And in order to do this more fairly and fully, let us see what is the exact statement of the claim as officially and “infallibly” pronounced. Here it is:— AMS September 27, 1894, page 297.5
Wherefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of the Christian people, we, the sacred council, approving, teach, and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when discharging the office of pastor, and teacher of all Christians, by reason of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the whole church—he, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possesses that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals: and that, therefore, such definitions of the said Roman pontiff are of themselves unalterable and not from the consent of the church. AMS September 27, 1894, page 297.6
Consequently, Catholics believe that the pope is infallible when he teaches the faithful ex cathedra, that is, “from the chair” of St. Peter, in matters of faith or morals.—Catholic Belief, p. 69. AMS September 27, 1894, page 297.7
FROM this it is seen that there is no claim that infallibility attaches to the pope except when he speaks “ex cathedra that is, from the chair of St. Peter;” and he speaks “ex cathedra” only when he speaks (a) “as the father and doctor of all Christians;” (b) “discharging the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians;” (c) and then only as he speaks on a question of faith or morals. That is to say: If he speaks or writes only as a priest, a bishop, or a theologians, he is not claimed to be infallible, nor is that which is so spoken or written claimed to be infallibly true. If he speaks about the weather or the crops, or the loss of his temporal power, or politics generally, or his great “love for Protestants”—in none of this is it claimed that infallibility attaches to him or anything that he says. It is only when he speaks on a doctrine “regarding faith or morals to be held by the whole church,” that he or anything that he says is claimed to be infallible: and even then he or it is not infallible unless at the same time he speaks as the “father and doctor of all Christians,” and also “in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians,” as the successor of St. Peter. All three of these elements are essential to ex cathedra, and ex cathedra is essential to his infallibility. And this is the doctrine of “the infallibility of the pope.” AMS September 27, 1894, page 297.8
THAT this analysis is correct, can be seen from the following statement of the case, by Cardinal Gibbons:— AMS September 27, 1894, page 297.9
Bear in mind, also, that this divine assistance that makes him infallible is guaranteed to the pope, not in his capacity as a private teacher, but only in his official capacity, when he judges of faith and morals as head of the church. If a pope, for instance, like Benedict XIV., were to write a treatise on canon law, his book would be as much open to criticism as that of any doctor of the church. AMS September 27, 1894, page 297.10
Finally, the inerrability of the popes, being restricted to questions of faith and morals, does not extend to the natural sciences, such as astronomy or geology, unless where error is presented under the false name of science, and arrays itself against revealed truth. It does not, therefore, concern itself about the nature and motions of the planets. Nor does it regard purely political questions, such as the form of government a nation ought to adopt, or what candidates we ought to vote for.... AMS September 27, 1894, page 297.11
What, then, is the real doctrine of infallibility? It simply means that the pope, as successor of St. Peter, prince of the apostles, by virtue of the promise of Jesus Christ, is preserved from error of judgment when he promulgates to the church a decision on faith or morals.—Faith of Our Fathers, pp. 147, 148. AMS September 27, 1894, page 297.12
It is only fair to state also that from the dogma above quoted, as well as from the cardinal’s statement of the doctrine, it is plain that the question of just what is embraced in the phrase, “faith or morals,” is left wide open. So that whatever the pope chooses to say is faith or morals, that is faith or morals. Therefore as a matter of fact the question of how narrow or how wide the application of this infallibility is or may be, is left entirely to be decided as the wish of the pope, or the interests of the papacy may demand on the particular occasion of the application of the doctrine. It may be so narrow as to touch but one single point or phase of a single abstract question, or it may be so wide as to embrace every interest of man in all the relation sof life pertaining to this world and the next. AMS September 27, 1894, page 297.13
FROM the dogma itself and from the cardinal’s statement of the doctrine, it is perfectly clear that it is not claimed that infallibility attaches to the man at all, who happens to be a pope, but that it attaches to the pope who happens to be a man. For instance, Joachim Pecci happened to become a pope. When he was just plain Joachim Pecci and nothing else, no hint of a claim of infallibility ever attached to him. And if he had always remained plain Joachim Pecci no hint of any such thing, in the mind of anybody, would have ever attached to him. When he became “Father Pecci,” a priest, it was the same way; when he became Bishop Pecci, it was the same way; when he became Archbishop Pecci, it was still the same way; and when he became Cardinal Pecci it was yet the same way—in none of these positions was any thought of infallibility ever connected with him in the mind of anybody. And if he had always remained in any one of these positions, no thought of infallibility ever would have been connected with him. AMS September 27, 1894, page 297.14
IT is perfectly plain, then, that outside of the office of pope there is no thought of infallibility connected with the man who happens to become pope. As priest, or bishop, or archbishop, or cardinal, no vestige of it attaches to him in the mind of anybody. Yet it was by a vote of 363, against two, bishops, archbishops, and cardinals, that the doctrine was established that infallibility does attach to him when he happens to become pope. This, too, while not one of the 363 made any kind of claim of infallibility on his own part! In this, therefore, we are treated to the absurd suggestion that 363 elements of absolute fal libility could in fallibly settle the doctrine that in fallibility is connected with one of their own absolutely fallible selves when he happens to be made pope!—No, this is not quite the full statement of the case yet; for when the 363 had voted it, it was not infallibly fixed until the pope had ex cathedra proclaimed it. That is to say, the 363 fallibles voted it infallibly so, then he of whom, till this, it was not infallibly so, proclaimed it infallibly so, and thus it became infallibly so. In other words, 363 fallibles voted his infallibility when he speaks ex cathedra; but this could not be infallibly certain till he himself had infallibly proclaimed it; and he could not infallibly proclaim it until it was infallibly so! Like produced totally unlike. Out of nothing SOMETHING CAME! AMS September 27, 1894, page 297.15
AGAIN: The pope must be chosen from among the cardinals, and this by the vote of the cardinals themselves. But not one of the cardinals makes any claim of any shadow of infallibility connected with himself. Yet these men, not one of whom has any shadow of it, elect one of themselves pope and then, lo! he has it! To-day, he is completely destitute of it, and to-morrow he is clothed with it: and all this because a number of persons as completely destitute of it as he was, put some ballots in a box which elected him pope! And so, on a second count, it is clear that “the infallibility of the pope” springs from the law of, like produces totally unlike; and, out of nothing something comes. AMS September 27, 1894, page 298.1
THIS is where the infallibility of the pope comes from. This is the source of the thing, in the abstract. Now let us inquire, How does it become so connected with him as to be available on demand? That we may arrive at the point of this inquiry in the easiest way, let us trace the thing onward from the point which we have reached. Not only is it true that as a mere man, or as a priest, or a bishop, or an archbishop, or a cardinal, there is no shadow of infallibility attaching to him; but even more than this, when he, being a cardinal, is elected pope, not even yet is he infallible. And when, by his coronation, he is duly installed in the office of pope—even yet he is not infallible. Not till all this has been passed through by him, and then, in addition, he as pope sits in “the chair of St. Peter,” and from that particular phase of the office speaks as the head of the church—not till then does any principle of infallibility attach to “the Roman Pontiff,” according to the dogma of “the infallibility of the pope.” Therefore, as infallibility does not attach to him except as he occupies that particular phase of the office, as successor of St. Peter, it follows plainly enough that it comes to him from that seat. As in the seat he has it, and out of the seat he does not have it, there is no other possible conclusion than that all the infallibility the pope ever has he gets from the seat which he occupies when he speaks, “ex cathedra, that is, from the chair of St. Peter.” AMS September 27, 1894, page 298.2
AGAIN: This is seen from the very language of the dogma of infallibility itself, and it is the inevitable logic of that language. The dogma declares that he is infallible, not by the divine assistance promised to him in himself, nor in him from those who elected him, but “by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.” As it is promised to him only “in blessed Peter,” there has to be some connection formed between him and “blessed Peter,” or else he cannot have it. But how can this connection be formed? Oh! it is claimed that Peter occupied the seat of the bishopric of Rome, and that when the “Roman Pontiff” sits in that seat the necessary connection is formed between him and “blessed Peter,” that makes infallibility available as occasion may require. Therefore it is the only logic of the dogma, that the pope gets his infallibility in its concrete form so that it is available, altogether from the seat which he occupies when he speaks, “ex cathedra, that is, from the chair of St. Peter.” By this we would not insist that this seat must necessarily be the identical, literal chair in which papal “tradition” says that Peter literally sat. We are willing to allow that the pope may speak ex cathedra from another than that identical, literal chair, and that such speech would be as much “infallible” as though spoken from that literal chair. But we do insist, and the dogma and the whole theory of papal “infallibility” demands it that as it is not in the man, nor in the ecclesiastic, nor in the election, nor in the office apart from that particular phase of it, it is inevitably derived from that seat, whether it be the identical chair in which Peter is said to have sat, or any other, or none at all. AMS September 27, 1894, page 298.3
LET no one say that in tracing the infallibility of the pope altogether to the seat which he occupies when he speaks “from the chair,” we are carrying the thing too far, and taking an advantage merely for the sake of advantage, by a mere play upon word. This is not so. It is nothing else than the plain, sober, consequence of the words of the dogma; and of the cardinal’s statement of the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope. It is not true of the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope, to say that it attaches to him by virtue of that office rather than by the seat which he occupies when he speaks ex cathedra, in the exercise of the office. For he may hold the office of pope and exercise the ordinary duties and prerogatives of that office as long as he lives, and yet no claim of infallibility attach to anything that he ever does or says, or to him in the doing or saying of anything; because during the whole time of his occupying that office there may be no occasion for him to speak ex cathedra. For it is only when so speaking that it is claimed that infallibility attaches to him or to anything that he says. It is a fact that Leo XIII. has never yet spoken “ex cathedra,” and therefore has never yet exercised the prerogative of infallibility. But he does hold the office of pope and has exercised all the duties of the office that occasion has demanded—and all this without infallibility attaching to what he has said or done, or to him in the saying or doing of it. AMS September 27, 1894, page 298.4
IT is therefore certain that the infallibility claimed for him does not come to him simply by virtue of his office as pope. The source of it is back of that yet. And as he may occupy that office and exercise all the duties of that office that occasion demands, to the end of his office and his life, without ever being called upon to speak “ex cathedra defining a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the whole church;” as it is only when he so speaks that infallibility is claimed to attach to him or anything that he says; and as, so to speak—to speak “ex cathedra”—is in itself to speak “from the chair,” from the seat, “of St. Peter,” it follows plainly, soberly, and inevitably, without any play upon words, that all the infallibility that the “Roman Pontiff” ever can have, comes to him not by virtue of the office which he holds, but altogether from the seat which he occupies when he speaks “ex cathedra, that is, ‘from the chair’ of St. Peter;” defining “a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the whole church.” AMS September 27, 1894, page 298.5
IT is in the seat and not in the office at all. It is not connected with the office except as that particular prerogative of the office is exercised upon the particular question of faith or morals, and in that particular way, namely, “ex cathedra, that is ‘from the chair’ of St. Peter.” AMS September 27, 1894, page 298.6
THEREFORE the only conclusion that can ever be honestly or logically derived from the dogma of the infallibility of the pope is that all the infallibility that the pope has or ever can have, he gets solely from this conception of “ex cathedra.” And as it is as plain as A, B, C, that no such thing as infallibility could ever possibly come from a sheer abstraction, it follows just as plainly that the only source of “the infallibility of the pope” is the “law” that, out of nothing something comes. AMS September 27, 1894, page 298.7
THIS is the truth. Of course it is an absurd conception; but let not the people of these States or of the United States laugh at this absurd claim on the part of the pope until they are sure they are entirely clear of all such conception in their own practice, or in their own consent even. This phase of the subject, however, will be discussed next week. AMS September 27, 1894, page 298.8
“A Backslidden Baptist” American Sentinel 9, 38, pp. 298, 299.
THE International Religious Liberty Association addressed a letter to the secular and religious papers of the country asking them to join in protest against the imprisonment of Mr. Capps, a Seventh-day Adventist, for doing common farm labor on Sunday. It was expected that Baptists, above all others, would be most unanimous in their protest; but we fear, from the returns which are coming in, that in this we are to be disappointed. The Alabama Baptist, of Aug. 9th, whose motto is, “Speaking the truth in love,” replies as follows:— AMS September 27, 1894, page 298.1
Now, Baptist believer in liberty of conscience as we are, we cannot accept the invitation. We do not see persecution in the case. The people of Tennessee, like those of other States, by statute law recognized the Christian Sabbath as God’s holy day, and they declared that certain things must not be done on that day. Mr. Capps did one of those things, and thereby violated the law. Whether the law be good or bad, or whether Mr. Capps’ convictions or conscience may be right, are not questions to be considered. The simple fact is that he deliberately violated a plain law of the State, of long standing, and which expresses the will of a large majority of the people, and he could not reasonably expect anything else than to pay the penalty of such violation. AMS September 27, 1894, page 298.2
As a part of our comment we introduce the following quotation from the Baptist Examiner, of this city, which is an effort to convert another Baptist organ to the scriptural and time-honored Baptist principle of religious liberty:— AMS September 27, 1894, page 299.1
We did not expect that any Baptist would defend the prosecution of otherwise inoffensive Christians for labor on the first day of the week that disturbs nobody else. The Baptist and Reflector, of Nashville, however, undertakes to justify this persecution in the State of Tennessee, which is similar to the cases that have recently occurred in Maryland and Georgia. It would have been easy, by the use of similar arguments, for those who persecuted Baptists in the past, to have justified their conduct and policy. If there is any body of Christians that has solemnly and stoutly protested against such persecution, no matter who were its victims or its authors, it is the Baptists. We have never before seen an attempt at justification of religious persecution in the Baptist Church newspaper. We hope never to see one again. AMS September 27, 1894, page 299.2
And now to show how “easy” it would have been for the persecutors of Baptists to have justified themselves “by the use of similar arguments” we will put the “arguments” of the Alabama Baptist into the mouth of Massachusetts Puritans and address them to Elder Holmes and other Baptist victims. AMS September 27, 1894, page 299.3
The people of this colony, like those of other colonies, by statute law recognized sprinkling as God’s holy mode of baptism, and they declared that baptism by immersion or rebaptism must not be done. Mr. Holmes did both of these things, and thereby violated the law. Whether the law is good or bad, or whether Mr. Holmes’ convictions or conscience may be right, are not questions to be considered. The simple fact is that he deliberately violated a plain law of the colony, of long standing, and which expresses the plain will of a large majority of the people, and he could not reasonably expect anything else than to pay the penalty of such violation. AMS September 27, 1894, page 299.4
We appeal to all Baptists. Are the cases not parallel? The penalty in the case of Elder Holmes was thirty pounds or thirty lashes. The penalty in the case of Mr. Capps was $68.65 or 280 days’ imprisonment. Elder Holmes conscientiously refused to pay the fine and was whipped. Mr. Capps conscientiously refused to pay the fine and was imprisoned. And the difference between Mr. Capps and the editor of the Alabama Baptist is that Mr. Capps is the legitimate successor of Elder Holmes in suffering for conscience’ sake, and the editor of the Alabama Baptist though claiming to be a Baptist, is a legitimate successor of Cotton Mather in defending the persecutors of a Seventh-day Adventist who is suffering for conscience’ sake. AMS September 27, 1894, page 299.5
“Did the Roman Catholic Church Ever Persecute?” American Sentinel 9, 38, pp. 299, 300.
Donahoe’s Magazine for September has an article in which it is denied that Rome ever persecuted. In answer to a question, “Why does not the Catholic Church publicly disavow and condemn all sorts of religious persecution”? it is replied:— AMS September 27, 1894, page 299.1
One good reason why the church does not do this is because she has never sanctioned or approved religious persecution of any kind. AMS September 27, 1894, page 299.2
And of the Inquisition, this statement is made:— AMS September 27, 1894, page 299.3
As to the Inquisition, every well-informed reader knows that whatever punishments were inflicted upon heretics during the time of its existence, were carried out by the civil, not by the ecclesiastical authorities. “As for the Roman court,” says the Rev. James Kent Stone, a convert to Catholicity, who is now know as Father Fidells, speaking on the subject of the Inquisition, “I am not aware that the smallest proof has ever been given that its procedings [sic.] were other than mild and conservative.” AMS September 27, 1894, page 299.4
And, again the editor makes the statement that “Rome did nothing that calls for disavowal now.” AMS September 27, 1894, page 299.5
Likewise, Cardinal Gibbons, in his book, “The Faith of Our Fathers,” says: “The Catholic Church has always been the zealous promoter of civil and religious liberty.”—Page 265. AMS September 27, 1894, page 299.6
In one sense, and in one sense only, is the denial of persecution by the Roman Catholic Church true: It was the civil arm, that is, the State, that executed the penalty against heretics. But this is making a distinction without a difference, since it was the ecclesiastical authorities who instigated and insisted upon the persecution. AMS September 27, 1894, page 299.7
In 1229 the Council of Toulouse “passed forty-five articles, instructing the bishops to bind by an oath a priest in every parish, and two or more laymen, to search out and apprehend heretics and those who sheltered them. Heresy was to be punished with the loss of property, and the house in which a heretic was found was to be burned.... Every two years, males from fourteen years upwards, and females from twelve years upwards, were obliged to repeat an oath to inform against heretics. The neglect of the annual confession was a sufficient ground for suspicion, as was also the possession of the Scriptures, especially in translations. In spite of these measures and the rigorous execution of them, especially in Southern France, the desired result was not secured. The bishops were accused of apathy, and were themselves made subjects of the Inquisition by the papal chair. In 1232 and Gregory IX. appointed the Dominicans a standing commission of inquisitors in Austria, Germany, Aragon, Lombardy, and in Southern France. At the same period was organized the so-called ‘soldiery of Jesus Christ against heretics.’ ... The suspicion of heresy was made a sufficient ground for apprehension; and, by a bull of Innocent IV. in 1252, resort was had, if necessary, to torture, to extract a confession.”—Schaff-Herzog, art. Inquisition. AMS September 27, 1894, page 299.8
The “Encyclopedia Britannica,” art. Inquisition, says:— AMS September 27, 1894, page 299.9
The germ of the Inquisition lies in the duty of searching out and correcting error entrusted to the deacons in the early churches. The promise in the Anglican Ordinal that the priest will be “ready with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word” is a pale reflection of this ancient charge. The episcopacy thus providing the instruments, the temporal power soon offered to enforce the sentences of the church; the edicts of Constantine and his successors now began that double system which, by ordaining that heretics should be dealt with by the secular arm, enabled the church to achieve her object without dipping her own hands in blood. AMS September 27, 1894, page 299.10
As before remarked, it is in this sense and in this sense only, that the Roman Catholic Church can, by any possibility, claim that she never persecuted. But no student of history will be deceived by such sophistry. The Inquisitors were the agents of “the church.” They were commissioned by the pope and acted for him. It was at the Council of Toulouse, in 1229, that the title of Inquisitor was first applied to the agents of the papacy. Prior to this time it was applied only to those who inquired into matters of taxation. “But the thing itself,” says the “Cyclopedia Britannica,” Art. Inquisition, “was far older than the name.” The same authority continues: “In 1184 the Synod of Verona cursed all heretics and their shelterers, ordered relapsed persons to be handed over to the secular arm for capital punishment, confiscated their property, and clearly indicated that the new Inquisition would go far beyond the older episcopal function. The synod did not hesitate to threaten easy-going bishops, urging them to more frequent and more searching visitations, standing over them as a superior power. And henceforward Inquisition becomes more systematized, with papal not episcopal authority; it was developed by those three masterful pontiffs, Innocent III. (1198-1216), Gregory IX. (1227-1241), and Innocent IV. (1243-1254), who all, regarding the supremacy of Rome as the keystone of society, claimed authority over men’s souls and bodies, above the authority of prince or bishop. Thus, soon after his accession, Innocent III. sent two Cistercians, Guy and Regnier, to visit the dioceses of Southern France and Spain, “to catch and kill the little foxes,” the Waldensians, Cathari, and Patarines, to whose tails were fastened firebands to burn up the good corn of the faithful.” AMS September 27, 1894, page 299.11
“In Italy,” says the “Britannica,” “the Inquisition was established under Dominican supervision as early as 1224. Inquisitors were at a later time brought into England to combat the Wickliffite opinions.” Of the Inquisition in Spain, the same work says: “The motive of strictly religious fanaticism influenced, not the monarchs, but the Dominican instruments of the Holy Office;” and so persuaded by the minions of the pope, Ferdinand sent to Rome to solicit the establishment of such a tribunal. Sextus IV. granted the request in 1478, and it was by this pope that the infamous Torquemada, a Dominican “father,” was commissioned Inquisition-General for Castile and Leon. Rome must do more than keep the pupils of her own schools in ignorance of history if she would escape the terrible responsibility of her acts in the Dark Ages; she must blot from the pages of history the black record; but that she can never do. Nor would she do it in the sense of changing the facts if she could; for “Rome did nothing that calls for disavowal now.” She would do the same thing again if she could, and wishes now only to conceal the facts. But why do even this; for, are not “Protestants” in our own and other lands persecuting Christians to-day and making the same excuse, namely, “We are only enforcing the civil law”? Yea, verily. The papal spirit still lives, not alone in the Roman Catholic Church, but in the natural heart; and as long as it does so live, there will be religious persecution under color of “civil” statutes; and it will be excused as “only enforcing civil law.” The modern Protestant Inquisition differs from the Inquisition of the popes only in degree. The principle is the same. AMS September 27, 1894, page 299.12
“Back Page” American Sentinel 9, 38, p. 304.
WE begin this week the publication of several articles on papal infallibility. We ask them a careful reading. Of course infallibility does not attach to the pope in any way, except in the minds of his votaries. It is altogether a vanishing quantity. It is claimed that it inheres only in a certain prerogative of the office of pope, namely, in ex cathedra utterances; and to this term the Vatican council of 1870 affixed such a definition that almost any utterance, on almost any subject, may be held to be ex cathedra or not ex cathedra, at the sweet will of the pope himself, or of those who are affected by the utterance. This is of course to leave a loophole by which to escape from the many glaring errors, to say nothing of the downright wickedness of many of the popes of Rome. That which part of the church accepts as ex cathedra may be denied by another part; or that which one pope has spoken “from the chair of St. Peter,” as he supposed and intended, may by another pope be ignored, or set down as simply an opinion on canon law or a deliverance on discipline. Three inquiries have recently been made from this office of as many high Roman Catholic officials in this country concerning ex cathedra utterances by the present pope. One of these officials (the highest in rank in the United States) replied: “It is not very often that the popes are obliged to speak in such a manner [ex cathedra]; but they have done so in many instances, as did Leo XIII. on a recent occasion.” When asked what the recent occasion was, and where an authentic copy of the utterance could be obtained, “the prince of the church” twice evaded the question. One archbishop and another archbishop’s chancellor replied that they had no knowledge of an ex cathedra utterance by the present pope. It is therefore evident that the pope’s infallibility is altogether chimerical, derived from an imaginary function of a man-made office, from the will of the “sovereign pontiff,” and dependent upon the interpretation of those to whom it is addressed. This is papal infallibility, and it is to faith in this that Leo XIII. invites “the rulers and peoples of the universe.” AMS September 27, 1894, page 304.1
ONE of the most significant of our “Significant Paragraphs,” this week, is that in which it is related that a Methodist preaching, in Ohio, exclaimed at a recent camp meeting: “God bless the Roman Catholic Church of to-day.” AMS September 27, 1894, page 304.2
“Rome never changes.” The Roman Catholic Church of to-day is, according to her own boast, the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages. Cardinal Gibbons says, in “The Faith of Our Fathers,” page 71:— AMS September 27, 1894, page 304.3
Perpetuity, or duration till the end of time, is one of the most striking marks of the Church. By perpetuity is not meant merely that Christianity in one form or another was always to exist, but that the Church was to remain forever in its integrity, clothed with all the attributes which God gave it in the beginning. For, if the Church lost any of her essential characteristics.... she could not be said to be perpetual, because she would not be the same institution. AMS September 27, 1894, page 304.4
Again, on page 83 of the same book, we find these words:— AMS September 27, 1894, page 304.5
Amid the continual changes in human institutions, she [the Roman Catholic Church] is the one institution that never changes.... She has seen monarchies changed into republics, and republics consolidated into empires—all this has she witnessed, while her own divine constitution has remained unaltered. AMS September 27, 1894, page 304.6
That Rome adapts herself in some measure to different ages is true; but that she changes in character is not true. Her doctrines, her purposes are the same now as the Middle Ages, and if she could she would push back the car of human progress to the position it occupied when she dominated the civilized world, and the Inquisition tortured its victims and hunted its enemies where it would. Says Brownson, a Roman Catholic writer, whose work is on sale in all Catholic book stores: “Always will the period from the sixth to the end of the fifteenth century stand out as most glorious in the annals of the race.”—Liberalism and the Church, page 182. AMS September 27, 1894, page 304.7
No, “Rome never changes,” and she is sorry that the world has changed. She is sorry that there was ever such an era as that of the Reformation. She is much grieved at the existence of the various Protestant sects, of which the Methodist Episcopal Church is one. And yet a Methodist preacher says, “God bless the Roman Catholic Church of to-day.” If Rome is the Church of God, there is no excuse for Methodism; its inception was wickedness, its continuance is presumption. But if Rome is, as the Scriptures characterize her, “the mystery of iniquity,” “the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth,” how dare any man bearing the name of Protestant, bid her God speed? AMS September 27, 1894, page 304.8