The Outcome of Its Present Struggle by J. O. CORLISS

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jan 30, 1908

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 85, No. 5.

Read the full edition

The Outcome of Its Present Struggle

By J. O. CORLISS

The Character of the Papacy—No. 9

The Outcome of Its Present Struggle

J. O. CORLISS

(Concluded)

Those who have seen the full text of the pope’s Syllabus, will readily see that, instead of conforming to the suggestions of the “open letter,” the ancient principles of Roman church government have been reaffirmed. This position of the pope was a great surprise to many leading lights in that church.

One priest, the Rev. George Tyrrell, one of the foremost “Modernists,” replied to the pope’s encyclical in a most caustic letter through the London Times. It was in part as follows: “Should the repressive measures of the encyclical be successfully carried out, which is rather difficult to imagine, it is to be feared that Modernism, to whose astounding energy, versatility, and diffusion the encyclical bears reluctant testimony, will be driven simply underground to the catacombs, there to grow and strengthen, and organize itself against the not distant day, when it shall be able to break forth again with gathered impetus. In spite of sand-barriers the tide will come in,—not peaceably, but with a dangerous rush.”

A little further on, the priest sounds this warning note: “Protestants will see clearly enough what they might expect from a ‘restitution of all things’ according to the mind of the encyclical; nor will they care to embark all their religious treasures in so frail a skiff as is furnished for them by an obsolete science system.” From this protest and others of the same nature from leading Catholics of the liberal school, it is very plain that these men have had in view a general recognition, by leading Protestants, of the claims of the Roman Church. Just how this was expected to be made feasible may be seen by a further veiled hint from the same letter: “But will this clear exposition of the tenets of scholastic theology, and of its claim to control and dictate to history and science, will the frankly inquisitorial methods by which this claim is to be enforced, will this root-and-branch repudiation of what moderns believe to be enlightenment, encourage modern governments to entrust the pope’s episcopal delegates with the control of public education?”

The letter goes on further to express regret for the position in which the pope’s encyclical has placed the so-called Modernists. Should they now secede from the church, they would, by so doing, virtually proclaim Catholicism a failure, whereas they believe it to be truth, while it is passing through the time of its “greatest betrayal.” Of the loyal Modernist, the missive has this to say: “What he will most deeply regret is the loss of one of the church’s greatest opportunities of proving herself the savior of the nations. Rarely in her history had the eyes of all been waiting upon her more expectantly, in the hope that she might have bread for the starving millions, for those who are troubled by that vague hunger for God on which the encyclical pours such scorn. Protestantism in its best thinkers and representatives had grown dissatisfied with its rude antithesis to Catholicism, and was beginning to wonder whether Rome too had not grown dissatisfied with her rigid medievalism. The Modernist movement had quickened a thousand dim dreams of reunion into enthusiastic hope. When lo! Pius X comes forward with a stone in one hand and a scorpion in the other. Thousands of the most deeply religious souls, scandalized by the crude identification of scholasticism with Catholicism, will be kept from the church and from those graces, sacraments, and helps to which they have infinitely more right than many ‘children of the kingdom.’ Nor can the wholesale alienation of the educated classes, with its implied contempt of the clerical mind, tell otherwise than disastrously on the less educated multitudes, already rapidly falling away from the church, who in these matters invariably follow from afar the fashion of their betters. The scandal of the strong is ever the greatest scandal of the weak.”

To all this lament by Rev. Tyrrell, and others, the Catholic press replies with ill-concealed warmth. The Catholic Universe of Cleveland, Ohio, assures one and all of its non-Catholic friends who seem so solicitous for the church’s welfare, that “Rome has spoken—the matter is closed,” and avers that “Catholics will be obedient to the voice that comes from Peter’s chair, because we know it is prompted by the divine spirit.” The writer calls attention to predictions made soon after

the decision of the Vatican Council that the infallibility theory would wreck the church, and shows how unfounded in fact they have proved. “The church,” he says, “like our Lord, speaks with authority.” On the other hand, he affirms that “Protestantism is going to destruction because it has no pilot, and has no one to speak with authority to save it from the breakers ahead, and from those round about.”

These statements, placed in contrast, are constantly being held up before the various sects, by Catholic writers, and then they point to the fact that the Roman Church is a unit, while among the Protestants no unanimity of sentiment exists. Signs have recently indicated that many among the sects are studying seriously these contrasts, as the result of a propaganda vigorously prosecuted by liberal Catholics. It is this latter reflection that has caused uneasiness among these missionaries, concerning the possible fateful effect of the late encyclical upon their anticipated harvest.

The discussion of this whole question is affecting the status of the Roman Church in America to no small degree. But in order to quiet timid minds on the situation, one Rev. William Starr, of Baltimore, stated through the Catholic Mirror that the pope’s encyclical “is not meant for Americans, and that the church in America will not be affected by its provisions.” While it is quite probable that the encyclical was aimed more particularly at sentiments like those written by Rev. Tyrrell and Père Loisy, yet inasmuch as the pope claims direct jurisdiction over the universal church, his pronunciamento was doubtless intended for both sides of the water.

A portion of a letter written by a Catholic priest to a Protestant friend, and published in the Independent of Sept. 26, 1907, reveals the pressure felt even in America by the pope’s proclamation, and also why the priesthood (or a portion of it at least) submits to the rules from Rome which govern it. He says: “I can thoroughly understand your astonishment that priests should submit to the stringent code that now coerces us. I often wonder at it myself. But, with enlightened priests, this submission is not owing to vows and promises made in ardent and unthinking youth. We submit to a great deal in order, by remaining in good standing within the church, to help the movement for reform and change. If only we may spread a little light, and open a few eyes to see it, we are willing to take the buffeting of ignorant despotism. And then, besides, our wonder that more priests do not revolt against the disgraceful intellectual Cæsarism is considerably modified, when we discover how few priests are in the smallest degree aware of the results and tendencies of modern scholarship. I have been amazed at the ignorance of priests.” Lack of space forbids the use of all this letter, but we will give a few sentences here and there, to get a glimpse of the situation as viewed by this Catholic priest. He says: “Let the eyes of earnest and intelligent priests once be opened, however, and there will be on this side of the water an explosion that will shake Rome’s seven hills. . . . Really, the intellectual situation is very critical within the fold of Roman Catholicism. Pius X has brought in an era of reactionary repression which is worse than anything of the kind in the memory of living men. . . . But there is one hopeful side to all this. I really think that these liberal Catholics so detested at Rome, will turn out to be the forerunners of Christian reunion. They are holding out to earnest Protestants the hand of fellowship which conservative Catholicity for four centuries has refused to proffer. As their numbers grow,—and they will grow,—the day will be proportionately hastened when we all who are Christ’s followers shall be one in that substantial unity for which he prayed.”

These last sentences show what Catholics are bent upon doing, in spite of obstacles they believe have been thrown in their way. Will they accomplish it? We shall soon see. In the meantime, let us study well a lesson from divine prophecy.

Mountain View, Cal.