Your ShelfYour Projects

The Present Outlook

5%

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jan 16, 1908

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 85, No. 3.

Read the full edition

The Present Outlook

By J. O. CORLISS

Character of the Papacy—No. 8

The Present Outlook

J. O. CORLISS
The Reformation movement was the birthcry of freedom,—not only in religious belief, but in civil rights as well. Having learned that eternal salvation did not depend on the mediation of papal agents, men were not slow to seek release from church interference in civil matters. But this effort became a signal for the church to strengthen her control of the state, which she assayed to do by pursuing heretics more zealously, and engaging the civil power to enforce her edicts against them.
This action on the part of the church was, however, of little avail. The people having tasted the sweets of merely theoretical freedom, were determined to push their way to the realization of complete emancipation from the thraldom of remote ages. Early in the sixteenth century the principles of the Reformation had spread all over western Europe, conquering Holland and Scandinavia, making great inroads in France and England. The Reformation was carrying its work even into Italy and Spain. The very throne of the papacy seemed in jeopardy, and something must be done to steady its tottering foundation.
Discussion of the situation had so divided the sentiment of Catholics, even, that many years were consumed in arriving at an understanding of what should be done to meet the impending crisis. At last, however, it was decided to hold a general council in Trent, a city of Austria, and so Paul III issued a bull, appointing that gathering for Nov. 1, 1542. So distasteful, however, was such a meeting to most of the clergy, that the effort to convene it proved abortive, and another call was issued for the council to meet March 15, 1545.
This council continued, at intervals, until Dec. 4, 1563. During this timethe doctrines of the church were reaffirmed, without omitting that of papal infallibility. These were reworded, however, so as to temper them somewhat to the sentiment of leading reformers, but all in vain. The reformers refused to abide by the decrees of a council controlled by Jesuit sentiment, as was that one, and so the Reformation moved out on the sea of history, supposedly free from papal influences.
The Council of Trent served one purpose alone in behalf of Catholicism. It defined more clearly the doctrines of that body, and gave fresh impetus to the teaching of the Catholic faith. This gave a well-defined distinction between Catholicism and Protestantism, so that people everywhere could easily choose between the two. As education has advanced, the propaganda of the two great bodies has shown a decided advantage in favor of Protestantism. While it is true that in the United States, Catholicism has by far the largest following of any denomination, yet statistics show that in Europe that church has fallen off considerably in late years. Records show that from 1899 to 1906, the number of Protestants who, in that country have turned to be Catholics is 7,285, while the number of Catholics who have renounced their early faith to become Protestants is 38,092. Besides these losses to Protestantism, new organizations within the borders of the ancient church have drawn from that faith nearly eleven thousand others. This “away from Rome” movement does not seem to be a spasmodic agitation, but a permanent factor in modern religious circles. It is thought by those who have given the matter some attention, that this movement, especially in the German provinces of Austria, is a reaction from a passive form of religion, to a deeper religious sentiment born of the conscious spiritual needs of thinking men.
This spirit of unrest among Catholics is not confined to any particular section of Europe. The Alte Glaube, of Leipsic not long ago made the statement that “a modern spirit has invaded the Church of Rome to such an extent as to endanger its unity.” This condition may be said to be largely due to Prof. Hermann Schell, once a member of the theological faculty of the University of Würzburg. His efforts to secure recognition for modern culture and a spiritual type of church life, called forth a personal rebuke from the pope. Portions of his work were condemned by the Index, and just prior to his death, a little more than a year ago, he made his external peace with the church, just in time to save himself from further contemplated humiliation.
But the placing of Schell’s work on the Index did not destroy its influence. A noted clergyman called its teachings “epoch making,” and this with other notices of like nature has called out bitter condemnation of them by notable Catholics. One of these, Prof. Sebastian Merkee, loudly protests against what he calls “hyena theologians,” and demands that they be replaced on the Würzburg faculty by men possessing “the cardinal quality of Catholicism—obedience.”
So pronounced has become this controversy within the Catholic Church, that the pope came to the rescue, and issued an encyclical in the Vatican organ, Osservatore Romano the sixteenth of last September, in which he condemns the doctrines of “Modernists” as “agnostic, and immanent.” The encyclical requires (a) that all Modernists be removed from professorships, and (b) that none of the clergy or the faithful be permitted to read their publications. A committee of censorship is to be established in every diocese to pass on the publications which the clergy and laity may read.
There are other provisions named, which it is not necessary to mention in this connection. These restrictions, however, have called forth considerable criticism, even from Catholic sources. Among these, the Giornale d’Italia, published in Rome, says the papal document shows that “the Vatican is incapable of keeping in harmony with modern civil society.” Another paper of the same place, the Italia, says: “The encyclical . . . is the reconstruction of the Roman inquisition.”
To say the least, the announcement of the pope’s Syllabus has come far short of calling back to the fold those who were censured by its utterances. Nor has it succeeded in settling the minds of those who had not yet identified themselves with the liberal wing of Catholicism. The great Catholic weekly review, Demain, published at Lyons, France, after mature thought, decided to suspend publication, and gave its reason for doing so in these words: “To put the matter quite plainly, Demain is unable to defend the Syllabus and will not take the responsibility of attacking it. Its conductors believe that the task of those who seek to reconcile the truths of religion with the truths of science and with the results of historical and critical research has been made impossible. There are only two alternatives; either to resist or to retire from the field.”
Some of these revelations of “historical and critical research,” referred to in the foregoing quotation, which oppose the teachings of the papacy, have been arrayed against the infallibility dogma, by liberal Catholics, hence were especially marked as worthy of condemnation by the Syllabus. One point advocated by Modernists, marked XXIII in that document, and condemned as a grievous error, is the following: “Between the facts narrated in Holy Scripture and the dogmas of the church based on these facts there can exist, and in fact does exist, a contradiction. Consequently, every critic has a right to reject, as false, facts which the church holds as most certain.” Another, marked LVI, strikes directly at the divine right of the popes, and is stated thus: “The Roman Church became the head of all churches, not by divine ordinance, but by purely political circumstances.”
By these references it is seen that the vital doctrines of the papacy are being jeopardized by the principles advocated by the so-called Modernists. Destroy the infallibility dogma in the mind of the world, and the superstructure of the papacy crumbles. In that case the Roman Church would stand no higher than other sects whom she affects to pity, and almost to despise, as being outside the pale of salvation. Her towering authority would then depart, never to return. No one understands this better than those who have always controlled papal influence. It is this knowledge that provokes such strenuous and persistent efforts to hold members in the ancient faith.
But as one writer in the Figaro states the present situation, “the question whether the new Syllabus is infallible or not is purely theoretical. . . . Since the Vatican definition there has never been a papal utterance which all theologians are agreed in regarding as infallible, and I do not suppose that there ever will be. Theoretically we ought, since 1870, to be in a position to know precisely what is infallible truth and what is not; practically, we are no better off in that respect than we were before.”
The present condition of the papacy, and the prospects of its immediate future fully corroborate the prophecy concerning it. Thus Daniel speaks of it immediately following the close of a certain “time, times, and a half:” “But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.” Dan. 7:26. The revelator probably refers to the same point when he says that after the ten horns, or kingdoms, which are a part of the beast, have given the strength of their kingdoms toward the upbuilding of the beast, until God’s Word has been fulfilled, that they shall then “hate the harlot,” and “make her desolate and naked.” Without doubt this is now in process of fulfilment. But in such case, how will this beast power bring to the people of earth a time of trouble such as never was, to be at its height just when the Lord Jesus is revealed in the clouds of heaven? This will also be, but the question of how it will be accomplished, we must consider in another study of this subject.
Mountain View, Cal.