PART II
CHAPTER 50
ROMANISM
HOME | contents | Roman, Anglican claims | Papacy: claims false | dictatorship | only God is infallible | scripture, tradition | rules of discipline | rejects conclusions of modern science | minor differences | roman fever
The controversy with Rome is always with us.
We may be plunged into it at any time in any part of the world.
Unpleasant as it is, we cannot avoid it or treat it is unimportant.
I. Rome not Plaintiff, still less Judge, but Defendant; Main Question about Roman Claims, not about Anglican Claims
The question is not whether the Anglican claims are true
but whether the Roman claims are true.
For if Rome were right, the Anglican claims would fall to the ground of themselves;
but if Rome is wrong, all that can be said against the Anglican Communion
has nothing to do with the case.
The argument against Rome would be as strong as it is now if the Anglican
Communion were to cease to exist.
There would still be as good reason for refusing submission to Rome.
Therefore we ought to refuse to discuss the Anglican claims with Romanists.
The Roman claims are the previous question.
We are not the defendants in this cause.
We are the plaintiffs,
and we cannot allow the Papacy,
which is the defendant,
to be also the judge.
top
II. Papal Claims False
The first accusation that we make against Rome is that the papal claims are false.
1. St. Peter not Supreme over the other Apostles
The first Papal claim is that St. Peter was "the
vicar of Christ",
[This title was first given to the Pope in the eighth
century.
In earlier times it was applied to all bishops, as by St. Basil and others.]
and is founded on three texts:
Matt.16.18 ("Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will
build My Church", etc.);
Luke 22.33 ("Strengthen thy brethren");
John 21.15-17 ("Feed My lambs ... feed My sheep").
The last two passages were universally interpreted by the Fathers as referring
to St. Peter's fall and restoration, never as giving him any permanent position.
[Romanists are bound by the Creed of Pope Pius IV to interpret
Scripture according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.]
So the claim of the Papacy to Divine right depends on a single passage, which
not one of the Fathers before the fourth century interpreted as having anything
to do with the See of Rome.
The true meaning of this passage is:
St. Peter was the first to recognize our Lord as the Messiah.
He or, according to another interpretation,
his confession was therefore the first stone of the building which was to
be built.
He was the first witness, which no one else could be.
All Christians are witnesses. He was the first.
The power of the keys given to him first was later given to all the apostles.
He was certainly the first of the apostles, but he had no supremacy over
them.
The whole of the New Testament bears witness to this
(see Acts 8.14, 11.2, 15.19; Gal.2.7, 11; II Cor.11.5, 12.11).
There is not one word in the New Testament to show that St. Peter had any
right to command the other apostles or any such position as the Pope occupies.
2. St. Peter not Bishop of Rome
The second claim is that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome and that the Bishops
of Rome are therefore his successors in a sense in which other bishops are
not.
There is no evidence whatever that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome (though it
was generally accepted from the fourth century on).
St. Peter was evidently not at Rome when St. Paul wrote the Epistle to the
Romans in which there are messages to many friends, but St. Peter is not
mentioned.
There is evidence, though not very strong evidence,
that St. Peter went to Rome and suffered martyrdom there;
and St. Peter and St. Paul appointed Linus, the first Bishop of Rome.
In this sense Rome is an apostolic see.
But there is no evidence that St. Peter resided permanently at Rome.
St. Justin (eighty years later) tells us that he went there to oppose Simon
Magus.
3. Bishops of Rome Inherited no Supremacy from St. Peter
The third claim is that the Bishops of Rome inherited the position that
our Lord is alleged to have given to St. Peter.
For this again there is no evidence before the fourth century.
The "cathedra Petri" (chair of Peter) in St. Cyprian (d.
258) is not the Roman See but the episcopal office.
All bishops were then regarded as the successors of St. Peter.
4. Papal Supremacy not by Divine Right
The fourth claim is that our Lord gave to St. Peter the supremacy of the
Pope - that is, his right to command other bishops, and his right to be appealed
to as the final judge in all cases of dispute - and it is therefore a Divine
right.
In reality this right was in early days never acknowledged outside Italy.
The Emperor Valentinian I gave the right of appeal to Rome to the bishops
of Western Christendom before 372.
It was probably a useful measure at that time,
but it was a purely legal right and had nothing to do with St. Peter;
and it did not extend beyond the western part of the Roman Empire which Valentinian
governed,
for the eastern part was governed by his brother Valens.
5. Communion with Rome not Necessary to Salvation
The fifth claim is that communion with and obedience to the Pope are necessary
to salvation.
Pope Boniface VIII was the first to make this claim in 1300.
In earlier times it was unknown.
Many saints recognized as saints at Rome have died out of communion with
Rome, such as St. Meletius of Antioch.
Many churches have excommunicated Rome (e.g. Constantinople in 1054).
They would not have dared to do so if the claim that it is necessary to salvation
to be in communion with Rome had been universally recognized.
It was asserted by the Vatican Council that St. Irenaeus taught that every
church must agree with the Church of Rome.
This is a misinterpretation of the passage.
What St. Irenaeus really wrote was:
To this church on account of its more powerful pre-eminence
it is necessary that every church should resort,
that is, the faithful who are from every quarter,
for in it the faith which has been handed down from the Apostles
has always been preserved by the faithful who are from every quarter.
That is, the faith of the Roman Church is kept pure,
not because Rome contains the see of the successor of St. Peter,
but because it is constantly visited as the capital of the empire
by Christians from all parts of the empire,
so that it is continually in contact with all the traditions of all the churches.
6. The Pope not Infallible
The sixth claim is the claim that the Pope is infallible when he speaks
officially (ex cathedra) as pastor and teacher of all Christians on
a matter of faith or morals.
This claim first appeared in the Middle Ages.
It was long the chief issue between the Ultramontane and Gallican parties
within the Roman Communion, and from 1682 to the French Revolution the French
clergy were obliged formally to deny it.
Nevertheless the Papacy held it
and took it for granted in dealing with most countries.
The long struggle with "Jansenism" cannot be understood unless
we realize that the Papacy and the Jesuits took this doctrine for granted.
It was finally defined as a dogma necessary to salvation by the Vatican Council
of 1870, which ascribed to the Pope the infallibility "with
which our Lord willed that His Church should be endowed" in the
definition of doctrine on faith and morals.
We have already seen that there is no reason to believe that any human being or body of human beings has been freed by God from the possibility of error; and it is as certain as any historical fact can be that the infallibility of the Pope was entirely unheard of for many centuries, and that down to 1870 it was expressly held not to be a dogma in many Romanist countries and was even denied to be one in the official "Keenan's Catechism".
7. The Pope has no Universal Ordinary Jurisdiction
The seventh claim is the claim to "universal ordinary jurisdiction".
Ordinary jurisdiction is the power of a bishop to govern his diocese and
to represent in it the universal episcopate, which was, in the ancient
constitution of the Church, the supreme authority. Metropolitans
and higher dignitaries have a right of visitation and a right to be appealed
to, but this is extra-ordinary jurisdiction.
As we have seen, the Pope did not possess originally any jurisdiction at
all outside his own patriarchate (Central and Southern Italy and some islands
in the Mediterranean Sea).
But he gradually acquired appellate and other extra-ordinary jurisdiction
throughout Western Christendom and claimed it over Eastern Christendom too.
It was this extra-ordinary jurisdiction that was repudiated by Article 37,
for the Pope never had ordinary jurisdiction in the Church of England.
But the Vatican Council laid down as a dogma necessary to salvation that
the Pope has ordinary jurisdiction over each and all of the faithful corporately
and individually, that he has as much power in every diocese as its own bishop
has.
This makes the Pope completely master of the Church in every detail of her
life.
top
III. The Papacy is a Dictatorship and therefore Intolerable
We reject all these seven claims as contrary to history and to the Catholic
faith.
Our rejection of them is not merely the rejection of abstract theories.
We do not believe in autocratic government.
The government of the Anglican Communion,
like the government of the British Empire,
is government by consent of the governed.
The Church is governed by her synods,
and the members of the synods are elected
(except that in England the bishops are still appointed by the Crown [That
is, recommended to the chapter for election, but the chapter cannot refuse
to elect.]).
We should have to be shown very clearly that autocratic government in the
Church was ordered by God to make us accept in religious matters what we
have always rejected in civil matters.
But Scripture, history, and experience alike teach
that autocracy is foreign to the government of the Church.
No English Romanist,
unless he is a cardinal,
has any voice in the government of the Roman Communion.
The Pope appoints the cardinals, and the cardinals elect the Pope.
For more than 400 years every Pope has been an Italian.
Since Rome is in Italy, it is natural that the Papacy should be an Italian
institution.
In earlier times when nationality was still undeveloped, the Pope might be
a Greek, a German, a Frenchman, or even an Englishman.
This is no longer possible.
The Papacy means the government of the Church by Italians,
for not only the Pope but the large majority of the officials by whom the
Roman Communion is governed is Italian.
Why should men of only one nation govern Christians of all nations?
It is true that dictatorship is sometimes more efficient than government
by consent (and some English people whose foible it is to praise foreign
systems at the expense of their own are fond of saying so).
This is especially noticeable because the English Church is burdened with
many restrictions that are survivals from an earlier age, and because the
Roman Communion in England is a minority church free from many hindrances
that hamper it in countries where it has been the religion of the majority
for centuries.
English Romanists enjoy more freedom, both internal and external, than Romanists
in other countries.
But dictatorship is not really to be preferred to free government.
We have to pay a price for liberty, but it is well worth the price, especially
as submission to the Papacy would not only take away our freedom, but also
force us to declare that to be true which we know to be false.
No doubt there is much to be said on grounds of expediency for a permanent
central organ of government in Church (and also much to be said against it).
But the Papal claims are not founded on expediency.
Arguments for the expediency of a central government
are not arguments for the Papacy.
The Papal claims are founded on a supposed Divine right that does not exist.
Until those claims have been dropped,
there can be no agreement or union in Christendom.
But they cannot be dropped because the Roman Communion is governed entirely
by means of them. The Pope cannot surrender his supremacy, his infallibility,
or his universal ordinary jurisdiction without upsetting the faith of millions. Eastern,
Anglican, and other non-Roman Christians cannot accept it because they know
that it is false, and that to accept it would be to reject truth, justice,
and freedom.
There is therefore a complete deadlock.
Whether it will ever be brought to an end only time can show.
top
IV. Infallibility Belongs to God Alone
After the Papal claims,
our next great objection to the teaching of Rome is the claim to infallibility,
that is, the claim that God has given to the Pope and to the General Councils
such freedom from error that we can be certain before they speak that what
they say will be true.
This is a very different thing from accepting the teaching of certain councils
as true and regarding those councils as ecumenical, because the Church has
agreed that their definitions were a necessary consequence of the teaching
of Holy Scripture.
It is in this sense only that we accept the binding authority of the genuine
Ecumenical Councils.
Rome teaches that a council is ecumenical,
not by the subsequent consent of the Church,
but by the assent of the Pope to its decrees.
The usual Roman view is that there are nineteen Ecumenical Councils
of which the Councils of Trent (1545-63) and of the Vatican (1870) are the
two last. [Recent research has shown that the ?ninth council?
was not what it was believed to be] This numbering has not always
been accepted even by Romanists.
The first edition of the acts of the Council of Florence (1439) called it
the Eighth Council. So did Cardinal Pole in 1554. According to the
usual modern reckoning it was the sixteenth. Cardinal Contarini in
1562 called it the Ninth. Most of the medieval Latin councils made
no doctrinal decrees but dealt only with matters of discipline. The
most important of them, the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), appears to have
rather listened to the decrees pronounced by Pope Innocent III than taken
any action of its own. [William Palmer, Treatise of
the Church, iv. 11, 2, who quotes Matthew Paris and Du Pin.]
The Council of Trent is by far the most important of these later councils,
and the claim that its decrees are infallible and irrevocable and must be
accepted without question as a condition of communion with Rome is perhaps
the most serious obstacle to the reconciliation of Rome with any other part
of Christendom.
For these decrees include the first five of the papal claims mentioned above,
and they have set tradition on a level with Scripture as a source of dogma.
If any new dogma can be imposed on the Church on the authority of tradition
without Scripture, we have no security that the faith of the Church will
always remain the same. But many of the definitions of Trent have their
origin in late medieval tradition, which is true also of the two dogmas imposed
by the Vatican Council: the infallibility and universal ordinary jurisdiction
of the Pope; and of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed
Virgin which was imposed by the Pope alone without any Council.
Since 1870 the official pronouncements of the Pope on faith and morals are
regarded as infallible - that is, they can never be changed.
Romanist theologians are not agreed how many infallible decrees there are.
According to P?e E. Dublanchy, [In the Dictionnaire
Catholique (1923), quoted by Dom Cuthbert Butler, Vatican Council,
v. 2, p. 227.]
twelve such decrees were issued before the Vatican Council,
including the Tome of Leo,
the condemnations of Luther and Jansen,
[Among the condemned doctrines of Luther was:
"It is against the will of the Holy Spirit
that heretics should be burned."]
the Bull Unigenitus,
and the Bull proclaiming the Immaculate Conception.
(Some say that the Bull Apostolicae Curae which condemned Anglican ordinations
was an infallible decree. It matters little whether it was or not for
if the papal claims are true, the question of Anglican ordinations if of
little importance; and if they are false, the Bull Apostolicae Curae has
no authority.)
top
V. Scripture and Tradition
Our third great objection to the teaching of Rome is the decree of Trent
that tradition is equal to Scripture as a source of dogma:
which had this effect,
that opinions which have no Scriptural authority
may be proclaimed by the Pope to be dogmas necessary to salvation.
Besides the Papal claims we reject the following classes of such opinions:
Dogmas about the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Dogmas about the Holy Eucharist.
Dogmas about the world beyond death.
Matters of discipline that have been made irreversible dogmas.
The assertion of these doctrines is due to two causes: curiosity about things
not revealed, and the desire to exalt the power of the Papacy by making matters
of discipline irreversible.
We know very little about our Lord's mother.
The Holy Eucharist is a mystery.
The world beyond death is probably such that we could not understand it,
and in any case little about it has been revealed.
But doctrines on these subjects of which no one can know anything certainly
are imposed by Rome as dogmas.
1. Speculations about the Blessed Virgin
The Perpetual Virginity and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin
have been made by Rome into dogmas necessary to salvation.
These were discussed above, pp. 73, 75.
It is enough to say here that the Perpetual Virginity is an ancient and universal
tradition that we must treat with the utmost respect, though we cannot allow
it to be imposed as a dogma because the evidence for it is not sufficient. But
the Immaculate Conception is a medieval theory contrary alike to Scripture,
tradition, and reason, which we cannot admit to be tenable even as an opinion.
[It is not a "pious opinion";
to believe that for which one has no evidence is not pious but a sin against
reason.]
Besides these there is an immense range of beliefs about the Blessed Virgin,
from the legend of her Assumption to the theory that she is the "neck" of
the Church so that all prayers to God must pass through her.
These beliefs are not dogmas in the Roman Communion, but they have received
the official sanction of many Popes.
They are commonly taught and believed,
and no one is allowed to oppose or criticize them publicly.
There have
been men who have been inclined to accept the decrees of Trent but have found
the gravest difficulty in accepting a system in which so many outrageous
opinions are officially taught and protected from all criticism.
2. Speculations about the Holy Eucharist
The doctrine of the Holy Eucharist will be discussed in Chapters 57-60.
It is enough to say here that we refuse to accept
Transubstantiation, Concomitance,
and the belief that the Eucharistic sacrifice is an immolation
as dogmas necessary to salvation.
They were all made dogmas by the Council of Trent.
3. Speculations about the other World
We cannot accept as dogmas necessary to salvation the following opinions
about the unseen world:
that Paradise is the same as Heaven,
and that the faithful departed enjoy the Beatific Vision of God even before
the final judgment;
that there is a Purgatory;
that indulgences can release souls from the pains of Purgatory (see p.
438);
the doctrine of works of supererogation, and the treasury of merits (see p.
200);
that the faithful departed can hear our requests, and that it is necessary
to ask them directly for their prayers.
Some of these are tenable opinions for which there is much to be said, but
none of them can be accepted as dogmas necessary to salvation because they
have no certain warrant of Holy Scripture.
top
VI. Right to Freedom from Latin Rules of Discipline
There are also several matters of discipline in which we differ from Rome.
We claim that in all such matters we have a right to freedom.
What may be expedient in Latin countries is not always expedient for us.
We refuse to have our traditions and our customs changed without our consent,
and we assert the right to change them ourselves within the limits of the
universal faith.
Our Lord commanded communion in both kinds, bread and wine (Matt.26.27).
Without
raising at this point the question whether any part of the Church has a right
to disobey this command, we maintain that every local church, which wishes
to observe the command, has a right to do so.
We claim the right to make our own rules about the marriage of the clergy
(I Cor.9.5),
the use of confession to a priest,
and services in the mother tongue (I Cor.14.18).
[And the lawfulness of cremation, which Rome forbids.]
On all these matters each local church has the right to make its own
rules.
We also differ from Rome in certain respects as to the discipline of marriage.
We do not regard either ordination or a religious vow as a diriment impediment
to marriage (p. 414).
[That is, an obstacle making subsequent marriage null and void.]
We do not accept the decrees of Trent requiring the presence of a priest
as necessary to a valid marriage.
We do not observe the same rules about prohibited degrees of kindred and
affinity (pp. 425-8).
But we agree with Rome that marriage is indissoluble because that doctrine
is founded on Scripture (see pp. 419-22).
top
VII. Rome Rejects the Agreed Conclusions of Modern Science
All these differences have existed ever since the Reformation.
But in the last hundred years a new kind of differences has arisen.
The Roman and Anglican Communions have taken up different attitudes towards
the critical and scientific movements of the nineteenth century.
The Roman Communion has officially condemned the most universally accepted
results of Biblical criticism and the belief that man and the other animals
have the same physical origin.
The Anglican Communion leaves its members free to form their own opinion
on these matters, and the great majority of us accept the general conclusions
of Biblical criticism and of modern biology and geology.1
It is no doubt possible that Rome will change its attitude to these problems,
but it does not seem likely to do so soon.
Meanwhile no Romanist is allowed to teach publicly that any book of the Bible
was written by anyone but its traditional author.
This makes an intellectual gulf between us.
We cannot use Romanist commentaries with profit, nor can Romanists use ours.
Their most elementary catechism appears to teach that the belief that Adam
and Eve were historical persons is necessary to salvation!
top
VIII. Various Minor Differences
There are many other subjects on which we cannot agree with Rome.
We cannot, for instance, approve of the way in which Romanists use even undoubtedly
genuine relics;
or of the numerous popular superstitions in some countries
which Rome, with all its power, does nothing to discourage.
While we recognize that the pronouncements of recent Popes on social and
political matters are sometimes of great value, we do not feel any special
respect for them because they are Papal.
top
IX. How to Deal with "Roman Fever"
In dealing with those who are attracted by the claims of Rome,
we should keep certain facts in mind.
The first is that the chief appeal of Romanism is not made to the reason
but to the imagination.
That is why it is so dangerous;
for it is the imagination, not the reason, which leads men to act.
We need never be afraid of meeting Roman claims on the ground of reason.
The very fact that Rome uses the methods of dictatorship, the censorship
and the index of prohibited books, shows that reason is on our side.
But we must avoid anything that may increase the prestige of Rome in the
imagination of our people.
We should never use such terms as "the Holy See" which the history
of the Papacy does not justify;
still less call the Romanists "Catholics" or
the Roman Communion "the Catholic Church" which implies that we
are heretics.
Second, our case against Rome is the case of truth against falsehood, and
freedom against slavery;
freedom which is not only religious but moral, intellectual,
and even political.
Every convert to Rome becomes an agent of a great
dictatorship whose power is directed against freedom in many different forms.
What
we are concerned with is not the opinions of liberal Romanists but the policy
of the Vatican which is, and has been for many centuries, completely realistic
and unscrupulous in pursuing its object to bring all mankind under its own
control.
Third, the attraction to Rome is sometimes a morbid symptom.
I could mention cases known to me in which it was due to physical causes
or mental disease.
Every case of what is commonly called "Roman
Fever" should be treated psychologically, and the real cause of the
attraction discovered if possible. In some cases argument only makes
the patient worse.
The true remedy, the only one effective in the
long run, is positive, definite, and fearless teaching of the faith as
we have received it combined with devotion and efficiency.
It is a mistake to argue with convinced Romanists, not because our arguments
are not stronger than theirs but because we have nothing to gain by controversy,
and because argument is useless against people who believe against all reason
that their side is infallible.
We must never admit for a moment that Romanism is the same as Catholicism
or that there is anything Catholic about the doctrines and practices peculiar
to Rome.
The middle position that we occupy is nothing to be ashamed
of.
The Anglican Communion stands between Rome and Geneva as the ancient Church
stood between Sabellius and Arius, between Nestorius and Eutyches.
It is because we are Catholic and Orthodox that we repudiate Romanism.
Let us hold fast the liberty with which Christ hath made us free and not
be entangled again in a yoke of bondage (Gal.5.1).
top