Catholic Apologetics Online

Choose a topic from Vol 3:

God

Man

Religion

The Religion of the Bible

The Christian Religion

A Definite Christian Faith

The Problem of Reunion

The Truth of Catholicism

The Church and the Bible

The Dogmas of the Catholic Church

Moral Teachings of the Catholic Church

The Church in Her Worship

The Church and Social Welfare

The Papacy as reunion center

268. You have quoted some Protestant clergymen as saying that the Papacy is the only possible center of unity for the Church,

I have; and there are very many who speak like that today.

269. Anglo-Catholics regard the Papacy merely as a handy rule of thumb for orthodoxy, but other Protestants do not.

If Anglo-Catholics regard the Papacy merely as a handy rule of thumb for orthodoxy, their ideas are no more acceptable to Catholics than to Protestants. We cannot accept patronizing views of Papal decisions as if they were "rather a good idea," or "quite useful!" To any Anglo-Catholics who would think in such a way I would say, "Either you believe sincerely in the infallibility and supremacy of the Pope, or you do not. If you do not, you cannot submit to the Pope on any plea that this would fit in with some favored scheme of your own. If you do, then you are not justified in refusing acceptance for a moment, and you should submit to Rome at once, instead of remaining in a false position for any supposedly good purpose."

270. Theoretically, the existence of a visible head of the Church seems to supply a stable rallying point.

It not only seems to do so; it does so. But these reasons of convenience are beside the point. The point is-what is the will of Christ? If it be the will of Christ that the Pope is the visible head of the Church, then we must be in union with him. If it be not the will of Christ that there should be a visible head of the Church on earth, then we cannot alter things to suit our own notions. Anglo-Catholics consistently refuse to face this issue.

271. In practice, the Roman claims have been the very basis of division in the Church.

There is no division in the Church. The Church is essentially One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Being one, it is at complete unity with itself, and must ever retain perfect unity. The Catholic Church alone does so. You may speak of divisions from the Church; but not of divisions in the Church. All non-Catholics are divided from the Church-that Catholic Church their forefathers left. And the Roman claims were not the cause of these divisions. Will the criminal in jail say that the laws of the State which he violated are the basis of his division from society? They are, of course, but the guilt is his own, not that of the State. And those who rebelled against the lawful authority of the Catholic Church, and left that Church, are responsible for their separation from it.

272. What kind of a center of unity is the Papacy, when it possesses the assent of less than half of Christendom?

Since they are the divisions of "Christendom" (not of the Church) which are to be united, one could hardly expect the proposed center of unity to possess the assent of all before they are united! It is not true that less than half of Christendom acknowledges the Papacy. Out of some 700 million of professing Christians, 400 million profess the Catholic Faith and admit the authority of the Pope. About 300 million reject the claims of the Pope, and repudiate the Catholic Church. But they are not united amongst themselves, save in protesting against Rome. If we ask these others to state their beliefs we get a chorus characterized chiefly by negations and contradictions. They are not unfairly described as a group of dissidents who cannot agree amongst themselves.

273. The Church as a whole judges against Papal claims, preferring schism to assent on terms dictated by Rome.

One cannot speak of the judgment of the Church as a whole whilst asserting in the same breath that it is split into fragments bv schism! Those belonging to one of the fragments separated from the Catholic Church appeal to the verdict of the other separated fragments that Rome is wrong, although they will not accept the verdict of those other fragments on anvthing else.

274. The witness of Rome is to be respected and weighed when it agrees with the rest of Christendom.

Is that to say that Rome might possibly be right if only she will admit that she is just as likely to be wrong as the separated sects which abandoned her?

275. So long as Rome persists in ignoring the witness of the rest of Christendom she will he subject, like the rest of us, to her own peculiar forms of heresy.

Never was a greater tribute paid to Rome. If the rest of the Churches are subject to their own peculiar forms of heresy, is Rome to be blamed because she won't join them and accept their self-confessed heretical witness? If Rome did join them, and renounce her claim to possess the full and complete truth, it would be good-bye to all hope of unity in the truth. The only hope for unity is for those who admit that they have not got it to submit to the one Church which is conscious of possessing it. And that one Church is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church cannot be expected to take seriously the offer of those who say. "We will be prepared to consider your claims to be the true Church only provided you do not make such claims, and admit that you are just as wrong as we are."

276. The inflated claims of Rome first compelled the Greek Orthodox to repudiate Rome.

Not the claims of Rome, but the inflated claims of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, led to the separation of the Greeks from the unity of the Catholic Church. And that break has been perpetuated by pride and nationalism.

277. Then Luther, after protesting in vain against abuses in the Church, was given his choice between keeping quiet or getting out.

Luther introduced far greater abuses than any he professed to remedy. I do not deny the existence of abuses. Multitudes of good Catholics were longing for their rectification. But Luther made them but an excuse for rebellion against the Catholic Church, and for the introduction of schism and heresy of which he was the self-constituted prophet. Rome proved the safeguard of unity by expelling him, preferring to see him divided from the Church rather than allow him to cause division in the Church. He was asked to submit, not to abuses in the Church, but to the just laws of the Church. He refused, left the Church, and dragged multitudes with him in the end. But his Protestant principles proved the cause of division after division amongst Protestants, as if to bring out by contrast the unity of Catholics who remained loyal to Rome. No one with eyes to see can doubt that the Papacy means unity, whilst separation from the Papacy leads to almost endless diversity.

278. Later still, the monstrous proportions Papal authority wished to assume in England led to the breaking away of the Anglican Church.

Henry VIII. thought it monstrous that the Pope should refuse him a divorce from Catherine in order that he might marry Anne Boleyn. But who will subscribe to the proposition that the Pope was responsible for the schism because he would not condone Henry's adultery? Unity at such a price would not be worth having. However, the Catholic Church preserved her unity, for Anglicanism is not a division within the Church. It constitutes a separate Church which no longer has any real bond with the Church of the centuries.

279. Then the "Old Catholics" were forced into separation from Rome by the decision of the Vatican Council that the Pope was infallible.

Your line of argument really is that every decree necessary to preserve unity is a cause of disunity because a few recalcitrant subjects refuse to accept and obey it. And is it reasonable to concentrate on a small group of disaffected subjects, ignoring the unity of hundreds of millions of loyal Catholics? Again, if the Papal claims were so wrong that the Greeks had to abandon the Church in the ninth century, why did Germany discover them to be wrong only when Luther discovered abuses in the sixteenth century? And why did England not equally see how wrong they were until Henry VIII. wanted his divorce? And why, despite the Greeks, and Luther, and Henry, were the "Old Catholics" content with the Catholic Church until 1870? If the Catholic Church was true until Henry came along, the Greeks were not justified in their secession. If true until the "Old Catholics" had to leave, neither Luther nor Henry was justified in leaving the true Church.

NEXT TOPIC »

MORE FROM VOLUME 3

• About the Author
• Preface
  - Msgr Fulton J Sheen
• Author's Foreword
  - Dr Rumble, MSC

Prefer a PRINT version?

Copyright