EDITOR’S PREFACE
Réné-Francois Guettée
was ordained a Roman Catholic
priest at Blois,
France in the year
1839. Almost immediately following his ordination he set out on a monumental task conceived
in his mind a few years
earlier. To research and then write a complete “History of the Church of France”.
It was this innocent endeavor
that would soon lead him to unexpected discoveries and inescapable conclusions concerning the papacy (This book being the fruit of those labors).
With patience and care Guettée skillfully sweeps
away the rubble
of misconception and fraud that obscured the pristine
voice of Church Fathers and their genuine
apostolic witness. His impeccable proofs shattering the pretensions and anti-Catholic innovations of Rome whose
foundation was evidently no longer Christ. Instead
she is shown to have chosen a different
cornerstone and a most fallible substitute.
He reveals how this former apostolic see once renowned
for her orthodoxy would, through worldly arrogance and pride
insert her single unaccountable bishop
as the principal overseer of the
Church, thus negating the ancient
apostolic model for governance. Its effect, a continuing denial and
illegitimate replacement for the Churches
One and True Head.
In Chapter V Father Guettée
presents a series
of letters written by Pope Gregory
the Great (6th C).
These letters to the Patriarch of Constantinople
, John the Faster are responses to what he construes as
John’s attempts to be recognized as the Church’s Universal
Bishop or Bishop of Bishops.
A notion he thoroughly and absolutely condemns as inspired by
the
devil. (He being
the first born of those who
attempt by
self exaltation to ascend a place not theirs.)
Forcefully and with great clarity
he vigorously denies such prerogative for any Apostolic See including the one he himself
now presides over, Rome.
In these pages,
the reader will also find in abundance
meticulous scholarship and perhaps for the
first time insight
as to what is genuine
Catholic ecclessiology. Father Guettée
remains ever faithful to the Vincentian model in his approach. This is a rule eminently Catholic
and necessary when
examining matters
of The Faith.
XX: The
Notes of a true Catholic (an excerpt
from St. Vincent of Lerins Commonitory
5th C)
This being the case, he is the true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, who
loves the Church, who loves the Body of Christ, who esteems
divine religion and the
Catholic Faith above everything, above the authority, above
the regard, above the genius, above the eloquence,
above the philosophy, of every man whatsoever; who
sets light by all of these,
and continuing steadfast
and established in the faith, resolves
that he will believe that, and that only, which he is sure the Catholic Church has held universally and from
ancient time.
Confronted by the complete and unfiltered testimony of the Church Fathers
and having examined in depth the undeniable historic records, Father Guettée found that Treasure and Pearl of Great
Price. (The One Holy Catholic
and Apostolic Church)
He would not for the sake of career and
promised honors be silenced. For that courage and intellectual honesty
we can all be grateful.
Kevin M. Kirwan 1999
AUTHOR’S INTRODUCTION.
THE Pope is a king, and pretends
to be sovereign pontiff of the Christian
Church. We do not propose to occupy ourselves with his royalty. To what advantage ? It will soon fall. Its ruin is decreed by Providence. Foreign
bayonets will no more save it than the sophisms of its defenders. If, as is affirmed, these are necessary to uphold the sovereign pontificate, it is but another reason
for desiring its fall-because this pontificate is an usurpation. This we proceed to demonstrate in the present
work. To reach this end we shall have recourse
neither to questionable arguments nor to declamation.
Facts drawn from original
sources are summoned as witnesses. We take the Roman
episcopate at the origin of Christianity, follow it through centuries, and are able to prove incontestably, that during eight
centuries the spiritual Papacy, as we understand it at the present day, had no existence; that the bishop
of Rome was during
three centuries only a bishop, with the same rank as the others; that in the fourth
century he received a primacy
of honor without
universal jurisdiction; that this honor has no other
foundation than the decrees of the Church; that his restricted
jurisdiction over certain neighboring churches is supported only upon a custom
legalized by Councils.
As for the universal sovereignty, absolute, of divine
right--in other words, the Papacy--facts
and catholic testimony of the first eight centuries condemn instead
of sustaining it.
History reveals
to us the Papacy, after several fruitless attempts, taking its birth from
circumstances and establishing itself in the ninth century, with its double political
and ecclesiastical character. Its real founder
was Adrian I Nicholas I chiefly contributed to its development; Gregory
VII. raised it to its loftiest pitch.
Adrian I. was in fact the first Pope. They who before this occupied the see of Rome, were
only bishops, successors, not of St. Peter, as has been declared and repeated to satiety, but of Linus, who was already bishop of Rome when St. Peter arrived in that city, to seal there by
his martyrdom the faith
he had preached. The defenders of the Papacy commit,
therefore, at the outset, one of the
grossest historical errors in carrying back the Papacy, that is, the Papal sovereignty, to the origin of Christianity. This error has led them to a
thousand others, impelled, as they have been, to seek proofs for the support of this false theory in the history of the Church and in the writings of the ancient
fathers. They have thus wrested facts and distorted testimonies. They have even dared to attack Holy Scripture, and by delusive anti-Catholic interpretation, made it bear false witness in favor of their system. It is thus
that the Church of Rome was the first to give example of those individual
interpretations for which
she so bitterly reproaches Protestantism. She was the first to abandon
the Catholic rule of the interpretation of the sacred books; she has put aside the collective interpretation
of which the fathers of the Church
have been the faithful
echoes, and upon her own authority she has presumed to discover
in Scripture that which
the Church Catholic has not found
there. She has come
thus to arrogate for her usurped sovereignty a divine
foundation. She has drawn from this principle
all its consequences; the Pope has become the vicar of Jesus Christ,
the necessary centre of the
Church, the pivot
of Christianity, the infallible organ of heaven.
These Papal errors were so skillfully disseminated in the western countries that they were there gradually adopted.
The protests which
they drew forth were indeed continued, but partaking of the spirit
of the age, they were not
sufficiently pointed; such even as were raised against
the abuses of the Papacy, admitted as beyond
question a divine basis for that institution.
At the present
day, these errors
have penetrated not only among the clergy and religious men;
the rationalists--anti-Christians themselves--admit the idea that the Pope is the sovereign chief of the Christian Church, and that his spiritual prerogatives are derived
from Jesus Christ. Many Protestants themselves do not conceive
of a Catholic Church without a Pope, and see this church only in the
Roman Church.1
We ourselves have been misled by
the common error, taught
as we had been to regard it as a revealed and incontestable verity.
1 The author thus touches two of the greatest
advantages which modern
writers, unfortunately, concede to the
Papists: 1st, That of identifying historical
Christianity with
the Mediæval
Roman system; 2d. That of
calling the Trentine
Church the
Catholic Church.
In embarking upon the extensive researches we were obliged to make for the preparation of the History
of the Church of France,
it did not enter our thoughts to examine certain questions, which only in an indirect way entered into our subject and upon which we had blindly accepted
certain opinions. Hence some expressions too favorable to the Papacy, and some errors of detail in our book. We
seize the occasion now offered to give warning
of them, in order that our readers may be on their guard against these errors,
which, however, will find their correction in the present
work.
Rome has visited-with her censure the History
of the Church of France
because it was not
sufficiently favorable to her pretensions.
We ourselves censure
it because too many concessions are there made to Roman
prejudices which bad been imparted to us as truth, and which we had not been
at the pains thoroughly to examine. Should Providence ever put it into our power to reprint the
History of the Church of France, we shall deem it an obligation of conscience to make the correction. This would have been done at the demand of Rome, had Rome condescended to convince us of ,error.
We shall do it, however, at the requirement of our own conscience, now more enlightened.
No man is infallible; hence, inasmuch as a man dishonors
himself by changing
his opinions without good reason
or pretending such change from motives of interest,
in the same degree
does he honor himself when acknowledging
and retracting errors he discovers himself to
have committed.
We are therefore disposed
to great tolerance
toward Roman Catholics
who believe in the
divine origin of the Papal
prerogatives; for we know that this prejudgment is communicated
to all of them with the first elements
of religious instruction, and that every thing in the Roman Church tends to
strengthen it in their souls.
But the more deeply this delusion
is rooted in the Roman Church, and generally in all the West,
the more are we bound
to combat it with vigor.
To this pursuit
have we for several years perseveringly devoted
ourselves, and, thanks to God,
our labors have not been useless.
We hope the new work we now send forth will also bear its fruits, and will come to the help of those religious men, daily increasing in number, who, in the
presence of the abuses
and excesses of every kind committed by the.
Papacy, can no longer be blinded respecting it by old delusions.
Accustomed to see in it the divine centre
of the Church, they can no longer recognize
such a centre in this hotbed
of innovations and of sacrilegious usurpations; they ask, therefore,
where is the Church of Jesus Christ?
We need only divest the Papacy of the glory it has usurped,
that the Church Catholic may at once appear in her majestic perpetuity, in her universality. The Papacy has narrowed it to the point of presuming to comprehend
the whole Church in itself. Tear away these
glittering pretensions, and the Christian society
will appear marching with unbroken progress
through ages, preserving inviolate the deposit of revelation, protesting against
every error, whether
emanating from Rome or elsewhere; accepting as her rule only the catholic rule founded upon the Word of God, of
which the Councils and the Fathers are the organs.
In this holy society there are neither Greeks nor Barbarians, but Christians only, who can say
with St. Pacian, "Christian is my name; Catholic my surname,"
because they believe without
exception in all fullness (Kath
ólon) the doctrine
taught by the Master
and preserved intact by the
Church in all ages and in all places. This great truth is concisely
expressed by the well-known words of Vincent of Lerins:
“Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus."
The Pope would, in his own interest,
limit the Church
to such as acknowledge his sovereignty, that he might then absorb them and say, "I am the Church." Let us break down the
barriers he has raised,
and we shall at once see the Church
in all her beauty, expanding in freedom, unshackled by territorial boundaries, owning as its members all
particular churches, bound together
by the same faith, communing with one another through pastors
alike apostolic, made one in Jesus
Christ, the great Pontiff, the sole Head of the Church,
and in the Holy Spirit
its guide.
Who has broken this admirable unity of the first Christian ages? The Pope.
He has usurped
the place of Jesus Christ, and has said to all churches, "
It is in me and by
me you shall be united;
the ministry of your pastors shall proceed from me; from me are you to receive
doctrine. I am supreme pastor. It is my right to govern all. I am supreme judge.
I may judge all and be
myself judged by no one whomsoever.
I am the echo of heaven, the infallible voice of God.*
Shall the harmony of the Church Catholic
be destroyed because
the Papacy has availed itself of
outward circumstances
to extend its usurped
domination over a certain
number of individual
churches? Assuredly not. So far from excluding from this concord churches
which have resisted
her usurpations, it is the Papacy itself that is to be thus excluded. Not only has she broken with churches truly Catholic, but she has violated
the traditions of her own Church. She has divided them into two
distinct parts, like the Roman episcopate itself.
The Roman traditions of the first
eight centuries are not
the same as those of succeeding ages. The Papacy has, therefore, lost its true perpetuity in the
very points wherein it has innovated. Thus a member of the Roman Church who returns
to the
primitive doctrine of that Church, who rejects the innovations of the Papacy, reenters
at once into the Catholic concord,
belongs to the true Church
of Jesus Christ,
to that Church which has maintained itself
in its double character of perpetuity, of universality. Far from us be those deplorable
accusations of schism hurled
at venerable churches, which have preserved
the revealed doctrine in its
primitive purity, which have preserved the apostolic ministry! The Papacy calls them schismatical, because they have refused
to acknowledge its usurpations. It is full time such noisy misapprehensions
should cease.
We proceed, then, to demonstrate that it is the Papacy itself
which is guilty
of schism; that after having provoked
division, it has perpetuated and consolidated it by its
innovations; in a word,
that it has caused its divisions to pass into a state of schism.
This proved,
we shall be at liberty to conclude
that those who are considered by the
Papacy as schismatics because of their opposition to her autocracy, are in reality the true Catholics, and that it has,
in seeking to separate others
from it, become itself separated
from the Church.
There are those
in the West who would present the Papacy
as the legitimate development
of the Christian idea, as Christianity arrived at its completion.
The truth is, that it is the negation of the
evangelical idea, of the Christian idea. Can, then, the negation of an idea be considered as its
development? There will be some astonishment perhaps
in seeing us enter upon such a subject with this
degree of candor.
We answer, that at the epoch in which we live, there is need to speak frankly
without mental reserve.
We do not understand circumlocution
with respect to error. Indulgent, charitable toward men who are deceived, we believe that we obey a true instinct
of charity in waging
open war with the errors
that deceive men. "To
speak truth," as wrote the Patriarch Photius to Pope
Nicholas, " is the greatest
act of charity."
L'Abbe Guettée
* To similar words, almost the same as those
summed
up by the author,
the present pontiff, Pius IX., lately presumed to add the awful expression,
“I am the way, the Truth, and the Life.”
– EDITOR.
THE PAPACY
I.
THE Christian
Church
is
funda
mentally
divided.
Were
it
des
irable
to
expose
the
internal
feuds which
agit
ate
all
Christian
s
ocieti
es,
and
the
contradictory
doctrines
of the
sects
which have
revolted
against
the
Mother
Church,
they
would form
a
sorrowful picture.
Yet conflicts and heresies
have their purpose.
Indeed, as to doctrines
which do not belong to the deposit
of revelation, and which have not been defined,
controversy is permitted and the liberty of the human mind is to be respected. As for
heresy, St. Paul tells us that it is necessary, in order that the faith of believers may be well -rounded
and enlightened.
But above all divisions, there is one more serious, and which before all must attract attention because of its importance and of the facts
which have provoked
it; it is that which
exists between the Oriental Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic
Church.
Every Christian
heart must be saddened in view of this
separation, which has subsisted for so many centuries between churches which have alike an apostolic
origin; which have, save one word,
the same creed; which have the same sacraments, the same
priesthood, the same ethics,
the same worship. In spite of
these elements of union, division
has been since the ninth century
all acknowledged fact between
these churches. Upon whom recoils the responsibility for this
great religious and social crime ? This
is one of the gravest
questions upon which a theologian can enter; he can not resolve it without bringing
to judgment one of
these churches, without accusing it of
having despised the word
of Jesus Christ, who made unity a condition essential
to the existence of his Church.
It is evidently only by the strangest perversion of
Christian common-sense that the division
could have been provoked and perpetuated. This is admitted in the two
churches, Oriental and Roman. For
this reason they return upon each
other the accusation
of schism, and are unwilling to accept before God and
before the world the responsibility which they both regard as a stigma. One of the two must be guilty.
For notwithstanding reprehensible acts might be specified on
either side, these minor faults
would not account for the
separation. Discussions upon
secondary points, coldness,
occasioned by
vanity or ambition, can engender only transient controversies. To determine a fundamental and permanent division, there must be a more
radical cause and one which touches the very essence
of things.
It is not possible, then, to resolve
the question we have
put without seeking
this powerful and deep-seated cause which has provoked the schism and kept it alive to the
present day. In approaching this question, we have
been struck at the outset
by the difference that exists between the reproaches which the two churches, Oriental and Roman, urge against each other reciprocally.
The latter alleges
that the Oriental Church separated herself (from
her) to satisfy a pitiful grudge,
through interest, through ambition. Such motives could, philosophically, explain only temporary strifes. The Oriental Church,
on the contrary,
assigns for the schism a motive radical and logical:
she affirms that the Roman Church
has provoked it in seeking to impose in the name of
God an unlawful yoke upon
the Universal Church, that is, the Papal sovereignty, as contrary to the divine constitution of the Church as to the prescriptions of the ecumenical
councils.
If the accusations of the Oriental Church are well founded, it follows
that it is the Roman Church which is guilty.
In order to enlighten ourselves upon this point , we have investigated the relations of the
two churches before their separation. It is, indeed,
necessary
to establish clearly
the nature of these relations in order to see from which side has
come
the rupture. If it be true that the Roman Church
sought in the ninth century
to impose upon the whole Church
a rule unknown to the previous
ages and therefore unlawful, we must conclude that she alone should bear the responsibility of the schism. We have pursued the study with calmness and free from prejudice: it has brought us to these conclusions: (1.) The
bishop of Rome did not for
eight centuries possess the authority of divine right which he has since sought to exercise.
(2.) The pretension of the
bishop of Rome to the sovereignty of divine right over the
whole Church was the real cause of the
division.
We are about to produce the proofs in support of these conclusions. But before
presenting them we think
it profitable to interrogate the Holy Scriptures, and examine
whether the pretensions of the bishop of Rome to universal sovereignty of the Church
have, as is alleged, any ground
in the Word of God.
II.
THE PAPAL AUTHORITY CONDEMNED BY
THE WORD OF GOD.
THE Church, according to St. Paul, is a temple, a religious edifice,
of which the faithful
are the stones. "
You are," said he to the faithful
of Ephesus,
(2: 20-22,) “built upon
the foundation of the apostles
and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together
groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye
also are builded
together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”
Thus, according to St. Paul, the Church is the society
of all the faithful
of the Old as well as of the
New Testament; the first, instructed by the
prophets, and the second, by the apostles, form together a spiritual habitation, having for its foundation Jesus Christ, waited for by the one as the Messiah, adored by the other as the
Divine Word clothed in humanity.
The prophets and apostles
form the first layers of this
mystic edifice. The faithful
are raised on these foundations and form the edifice itself;
finally Jesus Christ is the principal stone, the cornerstone which gives solidity
to the monument.
There is no other
foundation or principal stone
than Jesus Christ. St. Paul writes to the Corinthians, (1 Cor. 3 : 11,) “For
other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is
Jesus Christ." Paul gave to the Corinthians this lesson, because among them many
attached themselves
to the preachers of the
Gospel, as though they had been the corner-stone of the
Church. “I have learned,"
said he to them, “that there
are contentions among, you. . . . Every one of you saith, I am of
Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I
of Christ. Is Christ divided
? Was Paul crucified for you?"
Peter himself could not be, according to St. Paul,
regarded as the
corner-stone of the Church, as the first vicar of
Jesus Christ, any more than himself or
Apollos. Peter and all the other
apostles were only in his eyes the ministers of Jesus Christ, the first layers
of the mystic edifice.
St. Paul also compares the Church to a body, of which Jesus Christ is the head,
and of which the members are the pastors
and the faithful.
"Christ," said he, "gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the
saints, for the work
of the ministry, for the
edifying of the body of
Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the, faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God,
unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the
stature of the fullness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to
and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the
whole body fitly joined together and
compacted by that which every
joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase
of the body, unto the edifying
of itself in love."
There is then but one Church,
of which Jesus Christ is the head; which is composed
of the faithful as
well as the pastors, and in the bosom of
which
the pastors work in the various ministrations which are, confided
to them to develop the Christian life, of
which charity is the sum.
Do we perceive, in these notions
of the Church, a monarchy governed
by a sovereign pontiff, absolute and infallible ?
Now this Church
which St. Paul regards as the
depository of divine instruction-this Church as extended in its unity as in its universality-it is this that he calls "the
pillar and ground of the truth." (I Tim. 3: 15.)
"The elders
which are among
you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker
of the glory that shall be revealed. Feed the flock
of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof,
not by constraint, but willingly; not
for filthy lucre, but of
a ready mind; neither as being
lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd
shall appear, ye shall receive
a crown of glory that fadeth not away." (I Peter 5 : 1,
et seq.)
St. Peter, then, whom the Roman theologians would make the absolute prince of
the Church, knew but one chief Shepherd, Jesus Christ. As for himself, he was
the colleague of the other apostles
by his priesthood; he speaks
neither of his primacy nor of his sovereignty. He does not raise himself above the other
pastors of the Church, whom, on the
contrary, he addresses as his equals
and his brethren; justifying himself solely in giving them counsel, in that
he was a witness
of the sufferings of
Jesus Christ and also of
his future glory, which had been
revealed to him upon
Mount Tabor.
We have not met in Holy
Scripture any text relating to the subject we are now
considering, where Jesus Christ is not regarded
as the sole held of
the Church, nor in which the Church
is not represented as a whole,
one and identical, composed of the faithful as well
as the pastors.
It can not be disputed that these pastors have received from Jesus Christ the powers necessary to govern well the Church.
Furthermore, it can not be denied that these powers given to the apostles
were also transmitted to their legitimate successors;
for the Church and the
body of pastors should, according to Christ's word, be
perpetuated for all ages. Before leaving the earth, Christ
said to his apostles: “Go teach
all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the
Father, and of the
Son and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end
of the world." (Matt. 28 : 19,
20.)
Jesus Christ is then perpetually with the body of the pastors of the Church. It is to them
he has said in the person of the apostles: "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me."
It is still to them he says: " Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained."
This power, given in a general
manner to all the apostles, had been promised to St.
Peter previously, and in the same terms. This is one of
the proofs that the Popes
bring, to support their theory of
a special and superior power that Peter had received from Jesus,
and that has been transmitted to them; but they do
not
remark that the power was
given to all, that it was not
promised to Peter personally, but to all the apostles in his person.
This is the observation of
St. Cyprian, and of the greater
number of the Fathers of the,
Church. Other texts are also cited to support
this theory. We will consider them. Here is the first:
“Thou art Peter,
and upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates
of hell shall not prevail
against it."*
If we believe with the Popes, this text proves that St. Peter and the bishops of Rome, his successors,
have been established by Jesus
Christ as the corner-stone of the
Church, and
* Matt. 16 : 18,
19. it will here be remembered that both the text and Its application lose nearly all their power
when
translated into English.
In French, the word
Stone and the Christian name
Peter are both rendered " Pierre.”
that Error, figured
by the gates of bell,
shall never prevail against this stone
or rock. Hence, they draw this result, that they are the sovereign heads of the
Church.
If this reasoning be true, it follows
that St. Peter, to the exclusion of the
other
apostles, was established as
corner-stone of the Church,
and that it was
not merely a personal privilege to him, but that it has passed to
the bishops of Rome.*
It is not thus.
First of all, Peter
was not called
the rock of the
Church to the exclusion of the
other apostles. He was not made the head of
it. We see a proof
of this in the text of St.
Paul, already cited, in which that apostle distinctly affirms that the foundation-stones of the
Church are the prophets and apostles, joined together by the
corner-stone, which is Jesus
Christ.
The title of " rock of the Church " can not be given to St. Peter without
forcing the sense of Holy
Scripture, without destroying the economy of
the Church, nor without abandoning Catholic tradition. Jesus Christ has declared that he was himself that stone designated by the prophets, (Matt.
21 : 42; Luke 20
: 17, 18.) St. Paul says
that Christ was that Rock, (1 Corinth. 10: 4.) St. Peter
teaches the same truth, (1 Pet.
2 : 7, 8.)
The greater number of tile
Fathers of the Church
have not admitted the play upon
words that our Ultramontanes attribute to Jesus Christ in applying to St. Peter these words, "And upon this rock I
will build my Church."* In order to be convinced that their
interpretation is most just, it is only necessary to recall the circumstances
under which Jesus Christ addressed to St. Peter the words
so much abused by the Roman theologians.
He had asked of his
disciples, "Whom do men say, that I the Son of man am?" The disciples replied, "Some say
John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or
one of the prophets." “But whom," replied Jesus, "say ye that I am?" Simon Peter, answering
him, said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son
of the living God." Jesus answered him and said, “Blessed
art thou, Simon Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed
it unto thee, but my Father which
is in heaven. And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon
this rock I will build my
Church,"
etc.
These words mean nothing
but this: “I say unto thee, whom I
have surnamed Peter because of the
firmness of thy
faith, I say to thee that this truth that thou hast professed
is the foundation-stone of the
Church, and that Error shall
never prevail against
it."
As St. Augustine remarks, it was
not said to Simon, Thou art the rock,
(la pierre,) but thou
art Peter, (Pierre.) The words
of St. Augustine deserve
to fix the attention. “It is not,” said he, " upon thee as Peter, but upon
that rock which thou hast confessed." " Ce n'est pas, dit il sur toi qui es pierre, mais sur la pierre que tu as confessee
... tu es pierre, et sur cette
pierre que tu as confessee, sur cette pierre cue tu as reconnue en disant, Thou art Christ, etc., sur
cette pierre je batirai
mon eglise," I will build thee upon
myself, I will not be built upon thee. Those who wished to be built upon men said, " I am of
Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas, that is to say,
of Peter;" but those who did
not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, they said, "I
am of Christ." In the French language the name given to the man having the
same designation as that of the
thing, there is an amphibology which is not found
either in Greek or Latin. In these
languages the name of the
man has a masculine
* Launoy, Doctor of the Sorbonne,
known for a great number of works on theology
and whose vast erudition
no one will dispute, has shown the Catholic
tradition upon that question. He has demonstrated
by clear and authentic texts,
that but a small
number of Fathers or Doctors
of the Church have
applied to St. Peter the title of rock, upon
which the
Church should be built;
while the most of
them
do not apply this
to him at all, but understand these words of Christ In
quite a different manner. His
collection of Letters may be consulted, which are the treatises of a savant of
the first order.
termination, while the name of the
thing has a feminine,
rendering it more easy to perceive
the distinction that Christ had in view; moreover, it is easy in these two languages to remark, by the aid of the pronoun and the feminine
article that precedes the word la
pierre, (the stone,) that these words do not relate
to the masculine substantive which designates the man, but
to another object.
Besides, the Greek word oti
has not been sufficiently remarked, which in
Latin is exactly rendered by the
word quia, which means because, (parce que.) In translating thus in French,
the amphibology is avoided,
upon which is founded
all the reasoning of the popes and their partisans.
In Holy Scripture the Rock is
frequently spoken of in a figurative sense.
This word always signifies Christ,
and never, directly
or indirectly, St. Peter. The best interpreter of Scripture is Scripture
itself. It is then with good reason that the immense majority of the Fathers and Doctors have given
to the passage in question the interpretation that we claim for it-always referring either to Jesus
Christ, or to faith in his divinity the word
rock, which the Saviour used. This interpretation has the
threefold advantage of being more conformed to
the text, of
better according with other passages
of
Holy Scripture, and of not
attributing to
Christ a play upon words little worthy of his majesty.*
As for the few old
writers who admitted this play upon words, it must be remembered
that none of them interpreted the text in a manner favorable to the Papal
sovereignty, nor drew from it the exaggerated consequences of this system. These consequences are diametrically opposed to the whole of their
doctrine.
It is true that Christ addressed himself directly
to Peter; but it is only necessary
to read the context to see that he did not, thereby give him a title to the exclusion of the other
apostles. In fact, after having pronounced the words we have quoted, Jesus Christ, still addressing himself to Peter, added:
"I
will give unto thee the keys
of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven." In the two
parts of this text, Christ simply made two promises to Peter; the first,
that the Church should
be so firmly established in the faith if; his personal divinity, that error should never prevail against
that truth; the second, that he would give to Peter an important
ministry in the Church.
It is not possible
to sustain the doctrine that the power
of the keys was granted exclusively to St. Peter,
for Jesus Christ gave it to all of them at the same time, employing
the same terms that he had used in
promising, it to St. Peter, (Matt. 18
: 18;) moreover, he promised to all the apostles collectively, and not only to Peter, to be with them to the end of the
world.
* Among the Fathers who
have
given this
interpretation to the famous passage, Tu est Petrus,” we will name St. Hilary of Poitiers, The Trinity, sixth
book; St. Gregory
of Nyasa, Advent of our Lord; St. Ambrose, book
6, on
chapter ix. of St. Luke and on
2d chapter of Epistle to
the Ephesians; St. Jerome
upon the 18th
verse of the 16th
chapter of
St. Matthew; St. John Chrysostom homilies 55 and
83 upon St. Matthew, and
lst chapter Epistle to the Galatians; St. Augustine,
Tracts 7 and 123 upon St. John, 13th sermon upon the words of the
Lord, taken from St. Matthew, 1st Book of the
Retractions ; Acacius, homily pronounced at the Council of Ephesus ; St. Cyril
of Alexandria, 4th book
upon Isaiah, 4th book of the Trinity; St. Leo I., Sermons 2d and 3d,
upon his elevation to the
episcopate, sermon upon
the Tranfiguration of our Lord, sermon 2d
upon
the nativity of the
apostles Peter and Paul; St.
Gregory the Great, 3d book, 33d
epistle; St. John Damascene upon the Transfiguration.
This interpretation of the Fathers was preserved
In the West
until the era when Ultramontanism was
erected into a system by the Jesuits
in
the 16th century. It
will suffice to prove this
to cite Jonas of Orleans,
3d book on the worship
of images; Hincmar of Rheims, 33d essay;
Pope Nicholas I., 6th letter to Photius; Odo
of Cluny,
sermon upon
the see of St. Peter; Rupert, 3d
book upon St. Matthew and
12th book upon the Apocalypse;
Thomas Aquinas, supplement Q.
25,
art. 1; Anselm, upon the
16th
chapter of St. Matthew; Eckius,
2d book of the
primacy of St. Peter; Cardinal de Cusa,
Catholic Concordance,
2d book, chapters 13 and 18.
According to St. Matthew,
(Matt. 28 : 18, et seq.,)
Jesus approached his disciples and
said to them: "All power
is given unto me in heaven and in earth-,
go ye .... teach all nations,
etc .... and I am with you always, unto the end of
the world."
We read in St. John, (John 20 : 21, et
seq.,) " As my Father hath sent me, even so
send I you." After having said these words, he breathed upon them, and said to them, "
Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and
whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained."
Evidently Christ gave to his apostles
collectively the prerogatives he had promised to Peter. The promise made to Peter has
been realized in respect
to the whole body of pastors, which proves that Christ only spoke to
Peter as representing, his colleagues, as
being a type of the apostolic body.*
But, it may be asked, should we not
conclude that what was
addressed to Peter alone under such solemn circumstances, was the
bestowal of prerogatives in a special
and superior manner?
It must be remarked, that nowhere in the Gospel is it seen in respect
to Peter alone,
that any such promise made to him has
been realized. Peter received this power only with the
other apostles. But, if in the designs
of Christ there was to
be in the Church a supreme
and absolute head, this institution would have been of sufficient importance to cause a
particular mention in the sacred
volume, of some occasion when Jesus Christ delegated superior powers to this supreme chief.
On the contrary it is seen that special
assistance for the
preservation of revealed truth,
as well as the power of the keys, was given to Peter only
collectively with his fellow-workers in the apostleship.
St. Paul knew no more than the evangelists of superior powers
having, been conferred upon St. Peter. Beside
the texts that we
have already quoted, we read
in the Epistle to the Galatians, (2 : 7, 8, 9,) that Paul ascribes to himself, among the Gentiles, the same power
that Peter had among
the Jews, and that he did not regard
Peter as superior
to James and John,
whom he calls, like Peter, the pillars of the
Church. He even names James, Bishop
of
Jerusalem, before Peter when he
gives them their title of pillars of the Church;
he believed so little
in any authority of Peter, that he withstood him to the face, because
he was to be blamed.
When the apostles assembled at Jerusalem, Peter spoke in
council only as a simple member of
the assembly, not even the first,
but after many others. He felt
himself obliged in presence of the
other apostles-some old disciples and some faithful followers-to renounce publicly his opinion upon the
necessity of circumcision and other
Judaical ceremonies.
James, Bishop of Jerusalem, summed up the
discussion, proposed the resolution which was adopted, and acted as the
veritable president of
the assembly. (Acts 15: 7.)
The apostles then did not consider
St. Peter as the
foundation-stone of the Church. Consequently the Papal interpretation of the famous text, Tu es
Petrus, is as contrary to Holy Scripture as it is to Catholic tradition.
We can not see any serious objection to the manner in which we understand it. Our interpretation necessarily results from the comparison of
the various texts of Scripture
relating to the same subject.
From
a
Catholic
and
tra
ditio
nal
poi
nt
of
view
it
p
resents
e
very
guarantee
-in
fine,
the text
considered
in
itself
can
receive
no other
legiti
mate
rendering.
From
the
si
mple
reading of
the
passage,
it
appears,
that
the
Saviour
's
principal
object
was to
concentrate
upon hi
mself
and
his
divine
mission
the
whole
attention
of his
disci
ples.
His
divinity
is
the
idea
to
which
* It Is thus this text
is interpreted by Origen, upon St.
Matthew; St. Cyprian, Of the Unity of the Church; St. Augustine,
Tracts 50 and 118
upon St.
John, sermon 205 upon the Nativity
of the Apostles Peter and Paul; St. Ambrose upon
38th Psalm;
St. Pacian, 3d letter to Sempronius.
evidently his questions and the answers
of Peter had reference; the conclusion then should
relate to that idea. It is not possible to apply it to Peter, as
head of the Church, without
pretending that Christ,
after having spoken of his divinity, drew from
it, as a consequence, the Pontifical power,
which is an idea essentially different.
Let us now
see if the other texts
quoted by the Romish theologians in favor of the
Papal authority prove
that Jesus Christ has truly
established this authority in his Church.
They support
themselves upon this passage of the
Gospel of St. Luke, (St. Luke 22 :
31, et seq.,)
"Simon, Simon, behold; Satan
hath desired to have you that
he may sift you as wheat. But I
have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted,
strengthen thy brethren."
Jesus here addresses himself to the apostles in the person of Simon, surnamed Peter.
He says that Satan has asked permission to sift them, that is, to put their faith to severe trial. It is necessary to remark the word you,
in Latin vos, in Greek imas. Satan did not obtain
the opportunity that he desired. The apostles will not lose their faith in presence
of the temptations which they will be made to endure
in the ignominious death of
their Master. Peter only, in punishment for his
presumption, shall
yield and then deny his Master. But, thanks to the special prayer of the Saviour,
he shall return in repentance, and will thus have a great duty to
fulfill toward the brethren scandalized by
his fall-the duty of strengthening them, and repairing by his zeal and faith the fault he has committed.
Truly it is impossible to conceive how the
Popes have been so bold
as to set up this passage of St. Luke in order to establish their system. It must be remarked that these words
quoted were addressed by Christ to St. Peter
the very day that he was
to betray him, and that
they contain only a prediction of his fall. St. Peter
understood this well,
since he immediately replied, “Lord,
I am ready to go
with thee both into prison,
and to death;" but
Jesus added, "I tell thee,
Peter, the cock shall not crow
this day before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me."
The text of St.
Luke's Gospel is a proof against the firmness of
St. Peter's faith, rather than in favor of it-a
fortiori, then, should no deductions in support of his
superiority in the matter of doctrine or government be drawn
from it. And the Fathers of the Church
and the most learned
interpreters of Holy
Scripture have never dreamed of giving
to it any such meaning.
Aside from modern Popes and their partisans,
who wish at any price
to procure proofs, good or
bad, no one has ever seen in the words above quoted more than a warning
given to Peter to repair by
his faith the scandal
of his fall, and to strengthen the other apostles whom this fall must shake in their faith.* The obligation to confirm their faith proceeded
from the scandal
he would thus occasion; the words
confirma fratres are only the consequence of the word
conversus. Now if one would
give to the first a general
sense, why should it not be
given to the second? It would result then, if the successors
of St. Peter have inherited the prerogative of confirming their brethren in the faith, they have also inherited
that of the
need of conversion, after having denied Jesus Christ. We can not see how
the
Pontifical authority would gain by that.
The Popes who have found
such a singular proof to
support their pretensions in the
thirty-first and thirty-second verses of the twenty-second chapter
of St. Luke's Gospel,
have been very guarded
in their quotation
of the preceding verses.
The evangelist relates that a discussion arose among the apostles, as to who
should be considered the greatest among
them. The famous words, Tu es Petrus were already
pronounced-this should prove that the apostles did not receive
them as understood by the
* It was not until the ninth century, that
any Father or ecclesiastical writer
admitted
the Ultramontaue interpretation
Popes of modern times. The very eve before the death of Christ, they were ignorant
that he had chosen
Peter to be the first among them, and the foundation-stone of the Church.
Christ took part in the discussion. This would have been an excellent
opportunity for Him to
proclaim the power of Peter-moreover, it was time that it should
be done, for on the morrow he was to be put to death. Did he do
it?
Not only did the Saviour not recognize the superiority he is said to have promised Peter, but he gave altogether a contrary lesson to
his apostles, saying to them, “The kings
of the Gentiles
exercise lordship over them, and they that
exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so; but he -that is
greatest among you, let
him be as the younger, and he that is chief,
as he that doth serve."
In comparing
the recital of St. Luke with that of St. Mark,
it will be seen that the discussion had been occasioned by the request that the mother of
James and John had
made of Christ in favor of
her children. She had begged
for them the first two places in his kingdom
Christ did not tell her he had given the first place
to Peter, an answer
which would have been very natural and even necessary if St. Peter
had in fact been invested
with a superior authority. The ten other
apostles were indignant at the ambitious demand made by
James and John through their mother; they agitated among themselves the question of superiority.
Christ then
gave them the lesson
which we have related, and which immediately precedes
the text upon which the Roman theologians pretend
to support their system. (Matt.
20 : 20,
et seq.)
The value of this
pretended proof, after the context is considered, will be appreciated. They cite still in their favor a passage in the Gospel of St. John, (21 : 15, et seq.) “Jesus said to Simon Peter: ‘Simon, son
of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?'
He saith unto him: 'Yea, Lord; thou knowest
that I love thee.' He saith unto him: ‘Feed my
lambs.' He saith unto him again, the second
time: ‘Simon, son
of Jonas, lovest thou me?' He
saith unto him: 'Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee.' He saith
unto him: ‘Feed my sheep.' He saith unto him the third time: ‘Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?' Peter
was grieved because he saith unto him a third time, Lovest
thou me? And he said unto him:
'Lord, thou knowest
all things; thou knowest that I love thee.' Jesus
said unto him: ‘Feed my sheep."'
The Roman theologians argue thus upon this
text: “Jesus Christ has given
to St. Peter in a general
manner the care of the
pasture of the sheep
and lambs; now, the lambs are the
faithful, and the sheep are the pastors; therefore, Peter, and in his person
his successors, have received a supreme power
over the pastors (or shepherds) and over the faithful."
If this reasoning were just, it would
necessarily prove 1st. That the function
confided to St. Peter
was not also given to the other pastors of the Church; 2d.
That the lambs signify the faithful and the sheep the Pastors.
Now St. Peter
himself teaches us, that all the pastors
of the Church have received the ministry of
feeding the flock of the Lord.
We have already
quoted the passage of his
first epistle, in which he said to all those who were the heads of different churches, " Feed the flock of God which is among you." (1 Pet. 5: 2.)
Does the solemnity with which Christ gave that function to Peter imply that he
possessed it in a superior manner? Nothing
supports this idea.
The Fathers of the
Church and the most learned commentators have only seen the expiation of his
threefold denial in this
threefold attestation of love that Christ drew from
Peter. Nor did Peter see any thing else, since he “was grieved."
Had he conceived that Christ therein
conceded to him any
superior powers, he would rather have rejoiced than have been saddened by the
words that were addressed to him; but he was
convinced that the Saviour demanded a triple public declaration of his fidelity, before reinstalling him among the shepherds of his flock, because
he had given
reason for legitimate suspicions by denying his Master again and again.
Christ could only address himself to Peter, because he alone had been guilty of this
crime.
Now, do the lambs signify the faithful and the sheep the pastors? This interpretation is
altogether arbitrary, there can be nothing
found in Catholic tradition to confirm it; on
the contrary, tradition formally contradicts it, and it would
be impossible to quote one single
Father of the Church in its support. Moreover, this interpretation is not conformable to
Scripture. The words sheep and lambs
are indifferently used in
Holy Writ to describe the same
object. Thus we read in St. Matthew:
“I send you forth as sheep
in the midst of
wolves," (Matt. 10: 16,) and
in St. Luke: "I send
you forth as lambs among wolves,
(St. Luke
10:3.) The word sheep in Scripture signifies the faithful. We read in Ezekiel,
(34 : 6,) "My sheep wandered
through all the mountains." “Other
sheep I have which are not of
this fold. " St. Peter, addressing himself to the faithful of Pontus,
Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, said to them: ,Ye were
as sheep going astray,
but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. (1 Pet. 2 : 25.)
It is not possible
therefore to found or give different meanings
to the words sheep and lambs, nor
to interpret the word
sheep in the sense of pastors
or clergy.
If we feel obliged
to give to the two expressions a different meaning,
would it not be more
natural to understand by lambs the young members who have
need of the most tender
care, and by sheep to understand
those of maturer age, according
to the faith?
Thus the Papal
interpretation is so
thoroughly divested of foundation, that a commentator upon the
Gospels-one who would not be suspected by Roman
theologians, the Jesuit Maldonat-speaks of it in this language: "We
should not reason
acutely, in order to
discover why Christ employs the word
lambs rather than sheep. He
who would do this, should carefully consider
that he will only appear ridiculous to the learned,
for it is incontestable that those whom Christ calls his lambs are the same as those
he elsewhere designates as
his sheep. (Comment. in cap. xxi. John,
§ 30.)
St. Peter
then was instituted neither
the foundation-stone of the
Church nor its chief
pastor.
It need not be denied, however,
that a certain primacy was accorded to this apostle.
Although he was not
the first, in order of time, chosen
by our Lord as disciple, he is named
the first by St.
Matthew-this evangelist wishing
to name the twelve
apostles, thus expresses himself: " The first Simon, who
is called Peter, and Andrew his brother," etc.(Matt.10:2.) St. Luke
and St. Mark also name St. Peter the first, although otherwise
they do not follow
the same order
in naming the others.
Upon many occasions Christ gave to Peter evidences of particular consideration. His surname of Peter,
without having all the importance that the Roman theologians attach to it,
was nevertheless given to him to signify the firmness of his
faith, and for the
purpose of honoring him. Ordinarily Peter was always the first to question our Lord,
and to answer him in the name of the
other disciples. The evangelists use this expression, "Peter and those with him," to describe the apostolic body. (Mark 1 : 36; Luke 8 : 45; 9 : 32.) From these
facts can we conclude, with the Doctor de la Chambre, “That Christ
had granted to St. Peter
above all his colleagues in the apostolate, a primacy of jurisdiction and authority in the government of the
Church? (Traite
de l'Eglise, 1st vol.) This consequence
is not logical. In the first place it is
possible to be first in a corporation without having necessarily jurisdiction and authority-to
be, as it is said, first among equals-primus inter pares. Moreover, St. Peter is not always
named first in the Holy
Scriptures; thus St. John names Andrew before
him, (1 : 44;) St. Paul names him after James, (Galat. 2 : 9
;) he even names him after the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord, (1st Corinth. 9 : 5.) "Peter then was only the first among the apostles
as Stephen was the first among deacons." These words are St. Augustine's, (Sermon 316.)
Origen, (upon
St. John,) St. Cyprian (71st letter to Quint.) have the same idea.
We can affirm that no
Father of the Church has seen in the primacy of
Peter, any title to jurisdiction
or absolute authority in the government of the Church. They would
not have been able to draw
these conclusions without
contradicting Holy Scripture itself.
Christ forbade
his apostles to take, in relation
to each other, the titles of Master,
Doctor, and even Father, or Pope, which signifies the same thing. His words are positive, (Matt. 23: 8): "Be
ye not called Rabbi: for one
is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your
father upon earth, for one
is your Father which is in heaven.
Neither be ye called masters: for one
is your Master, even Christ.
But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant."
Upon comparing these
words of the Gospel with the pictures
that the Roman
theologians make of the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome, it will be easily seen that these
theologians are not in the truth.
St. Matthew relates that Peter having interrogated Jesus Christ upon the prerogatives of the apostles, our Lord answers him, saying: " Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of
his glory, ye shall also sit upon
twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes
of Israel."
If Christ had destined a superior seat to Peter, if he had
granted to him a higher position than to the other apostles, would he have said to St. Peter himself that the twelve
apostles should be seated upon twelve thrones without distinction?
The conclusion from all this is, that there is in the church
but one master, but one
lord, one chief shepherd.
Saith Christ:
"I am the Good Shepherd." .(John 10 :
II.) "Ye call me Master and Lord,
and ye say well, for so I am."
" One is your Master, even Christ."
(Matt. 23: 10.)
He is seated alone upon the
throne of his majesty, in the heavenly
city whose " wall has
twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles
of the Lamb. (Rev. 21:
14.)
The first pastors are there upon the
their seats, judging
the tribes of the
new people of God. If any
discussions arise that can not be amicably
settled, they must be carried to this
tribunal; not to one alone,
but before the whole Church, represented by those
ordained to govern it.
There is nothing
then in the writings of the New Testament which is even remotely favorable to that sovereign authority that the Romish theologians ascribe to St. Peter and to
the bishops of Rome, whom they consider his successors.
It may be even said that Scripture formally contradicts this authority. We have
already quoted some words of Christ sufficiently positive. The book
of the Acts, and the Epistles contain facts demonstrating that St. Peter
did not enjoy
any superiority in the
apostolic college. In fact,
it is said in the Acts,
(8 : 14,) "Now when the apostles
which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word
of God, they sent unto them Peter and John." Peter was
subordinate, not only to the apostolic college,
of which he was a member,
but to a lesser number of apostles in convention at Jerusalem; since he received
from them a mission.
In the same book,
(11 : 2-3,) we read that the faithful
of the circumcision reproached Peter for mingling
with the uncircumcised, and Peter excused himself by relating that he had obeyed
an express order of God.
Is this the mode in which a chief is ordinarily
treated, or that one supreme would
act in relation to subordinates? At the
council of Jerusalem, (Acts
15 : 7,) Peter was not
presiding, it was
James who gave sentence (19th verse,) Peter spoke but in his turn as
a simple member. Yet the presidency belonged
to him by right, if he had been vested with authority and jurisdiction over the whole
apostolic body. St. Paul (Epis. Galatians
2 : 7, etc.) refutes
the primacy of
Peter. He affirms that he is his
equal, he relates having reprimanded Peter for "walking not according to the truth
of the Gospel." (14th verse.)
Again,
he denies this (1 Corinth. 3: 4, 5, 22) when he affirms
that Peter is but a simple
minister
like himself, like Apollos,
who must not attach the faithful to themselves, but only as ministers of Christ, their only Master.
Finally, St. Peter himself denies the primacy with which he has since been invested
by Romish
theologians, when he addressed himself to the pastors of the churches which he had founded as their colleague. (1Pet. 1: 1.)
No comments:
Post a Comment