p. 5 | Its Corrupt Use by the Papacy by John O. Corliss

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Aug 24, 1911

Its Corrupt Use by the Papacy

By John O. Corliss

Tracings of the Prophetic Gift — No. 16

Its Corrupt Use by the Papacy

J. O. CORLISS

AFTER reading Cardinal Newman's definition of a prophet, and his claim that the Roman Church stands before the world as God's prophetic mouthpiece, it is easy to understand on what ground the head of that church claims the infallible right to rule all men in civil as well as in religious matters. If he really is Christ's vicegerent on earth, holding the place of Christ among men, why should he not in turn give power to his priests to receive confessions from penitents, to grant dispensations, and to forgive sins? Why should he not define men's duties, and multiply positive ordinances as it may please him?

From Cardinal Newman's reasoning, the papal church is not limited either in privilege or in resource. In fact, from his standpoint, the authority of that church is the authority of high Heaven, because being the prophet of God, it speaks and acts as God. Here are the cardinal's own words on this point:—

“We observe that the essence of the doctrine that there is ‘one only Catholic and Apostolic Church’ lies in this, that there is on earth a representative of our absent Lord, or a something divinely interposed between the soul and God, or a visible body with invisible privileges. All its subordinate characteristics flow from this description. Does it impose a creed, or impose rites and ceremonies, or change ordinances, or remit and retain sins, or rebuke and punish, or accept offerings, or send out ministers, or invest its ministers with authority, or accept of reverence and devotion in their persons? All this is because it is Christ's visible presence. It stands for Christ. Can it convey the power of the Spirit? Does grace attend its acts? Can it touch, or bathe, or seal, or lay on hands? Can it use material things for spiritual purposes? Are its temples holy? All this comes of its being (so far) what Christ was on earth. Is it a ruler, prophet, priest, intercessor, teacher? Has it titles such as these in its measure as being the representative and instrument of the Almighty, who is unseen? Does it claim a palace and a throne, an altar and a doctor's chair, the gold, frankincense, and myrrh of the rich and wise, a universal empire, and a never-ending succession? All this is so because it is what Christ is. All the offices, names, honors, and powers which it claims depend upon the determination of the simple question, ‘Has Christ, or has he not, left a representative behind him?’ Now, if he has, all is easy and intelligible. This is what churchmen maintain. They welcome the news, and they recognize in the church's acts but the fulfilment of the high trust committed to her. But let us suppose for a moment the other side of the alternative to be true; suppose Christ has left no representative behind him. Well, then, here is an association which professes to take his place without warrant. It comes forward instead of Christ and for him; it speaks for him; it develops his words, it suspends his appointments, it grants dispensations in matters of positive duty; it professes to minister grace; it absolves from sin; and all this of its own authority. Is it not forthwith according to the very force of the word Antichrist? He who speaks for Christ must either be his true ambassador or Antichrist; and nothing but Antichrist can he be if appointed ambassador there is none. Let his acts be the same in both cases, according as he has authority or not, so is he most holy or most guilty. It is not the acts that make the difference, it is the authority for those acts. The very same acts are Christ's or Antichrist's according to the doer; they are Antichrist's if Christ does them not. There is no medium between a vice-Christ and Antichrist.”—“Essays Critical and Historical,” Ed. 1907, by Longmans, Green & Co., Vol. II, pages 170-172.

This, of course, places every other phase of religious thought outside the pale of divine favor. Let it not be thought that Cardinal Newman's theory has now been outlived by the Roman Church, of whom it is said that she never changes. In the September, 1910, number of Current Literature is a quotation from Robert Hugh Benson, son of the late Archbishop of Canterbury, in which occurs this statement regarding the Roman Catholic Church: “Religious truth can nowhere be found outside of the infallible

authority to whose charge it has been committed.”

This shows that the present attitude of the Roman Church is just what was advocated by Cardinal Newman in 1840—prophetic authority, which invests the head of that church with power not only to speak to men in the place of God, but also to reverse any of the requirements of Jehovah, as it may appear desirable to him, and that without question on the part of any being concerned. This seems like strong language, yet it is already supported by the best of evidence.

But one reference to their own teaching need be advanced. That can be found in a late work entitled “Systematic Study of the Catholic Religion,” by Charles Coppens, S. J., page 318, and is as follows:—

“We have seen that God in the old law had appointed the last day of the week, the Sabbath, to be especially consecrated to his honor. No power but God's could have dispensed with this obligation. We do not read that Christ did so; on the contrary, we know that he observed it himself. And yet we also know that the church abolished the obligation of keeping that day, and in its stead instituted the observance of the Lord's day, the first day of the week. This fact by itself shows that the church from the beginning claimed the fulness of power to have been committed to her, to legislate in God's name for the followers of Christ.”

The prophets of old were called “men of God” because they taught only those things which God directed them to speak. But here is a church claiming to be clothed with the mantle of those prophets, yet boldly declaring that it has taught things directly contrary to the spoken word of God, and so has abolished a plain requirement which was “especially consecrated to his honor.” This, upon that church's own assertion, can be nothing short of a direct blow at the honor of God.

This extract boasts that “no power but God's could have dispensed with this obligation.” So one would think. But this brazen admission is that, while Christ did not attempt to do such a thing, this church, calling itself a Christian church and maintaining that its earthly head is the vicar of Christ, reigning here in his stead, has ruthlessly torn from God's law one requirement which was especially consecrated to the honor of God. It did that which Christ himself could not do and be loyal to Heaven, yet this church lays claim to being the specific and extraordinary voice of God to men.

In the foregoing excerpt from Cardinal Newman, he says, and truly so: “He who speaks for Christ must either be his true ambassador or Antichrist.” But in this boastful claim by Mr. Coppens, whose book bears the imprimatur of S. Ludovici, with the date of Aug. 19, 1903, the Catholic Church, instead of having spoken for Christ in the matter of the fourth commandment, confesses to have spoken contrary to him, and to the honor of God. According to the proclaimed test of Cardinal Newman, to what class ought the Catholic Church of to-day be assigned?

It may be said that the decision should be rendered according to the authority, and not be judged by the act. But of the authority for the acts, the cardinal says that “the very same acts are Christ's or Antichrist's according to the doer.” Then follows the imperative statement, “They are Antichrist's if Christ does them not.”

Now for the conclusion. Mr. Coppens concludes that Christ did not abolish the obligation of keeping the last, or seventh, day of the week, and adduces as positive evidence to that effect, that Christ himself observed that day. Yet Mr. Coppens says that the church did abolish such obligation, the thing that Christ did not do. From this confession it is plain that the change from the seventh to the first day of the week as a day of rest was not made by Christ, which places the brand of Antichrist upon the power responsible for the change.

This involves the honor of Jehovah's name, who set apart the Sabbath day. Does he care? Hear what he says about it: “If then I be a father, where is mine honor? . . . O priests, that despise my name.” Mal. 1:6. Further on in his dissertation the Lord says: “The priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth.” The direct charge is then made: “Ye have caused many to stumble at the law.” Chapter 2:7-9. Putting this in conjunction with the statements of Cardinal Newman, and the confession of Mr. Coppens, it is not hard to make a satisfactory application of it to the ravishers of God's honor. Surely there must be some remedy for the situation. What is it? The answer must wait for another paper.

Mountain View, Cal.