Papal Designs Upon It by J. O. Corliss

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D.C. · Aug 17, 1911

Papal Designs Upon It

By J. O. Corliss

Tracings of the Prophetic Gift—No. 15

Papal Designs Upon It

J. O. CORLISS

In order to lay claim to being God’s prophetic mouthpiece to men, the Papacy has dug deep for its foundation. It enters into the real, true need of an audible voice by which to direct men in the path of virtue. Its reasons for the maintenance of the prophetic gift can not fail to meet the approval of sensible minds.

It then moves forward step by step through a maze of inductions until it has landed itself upon the pinnacle of prophetic insight, and consequent spiritual dictation for the entire world. But we shall proceed to show these advances in their due order.

In his work entitled “Present Position of Catholics in England,” page 321, Cardinal Newman says that Scripture, “though written under a supernatural guidance, is, from the nature of the case, from the defect of human language and the infirmity of the recipient, unable by itself to convey the real mind of its writers to all who read it. Instead of its forcing its meaning upon the reader, the reader forces his own meaning upon it, colors it with his own thoughts, and distorts it to his purposes; so that something is evidently needed besides it, such as the teaching of the church, to protect it from the false private judgment of the individual.”

While the right of private judgment in applying Scripture is condemned in the cardinal’s statement, there is far greater danger when an uninspired individual assumes to explain the meaning of these Scriptures for the whole world. But the Papacy has provided against this suggestion.

In “Newman’s Sermons to Mixed Congregations,” page 146, the author, in speaking of the days of the apostles, says, “Christians were bound to take without doubting all that the apostles declared to be revealed.”

In this statement the author endeavors to lay the foundation for the infallible authority of the teaching of his church. For as the people had no other evidence for faith in the revelations of the apostles but their bare word, so now, whatever the church says should be received without further research. This is on the assumption that every individual judgment must yield to the assertions of those specially called to deliver God’s message, otherwise nothing would be received except what might be proved through private discernment.

The cardinal then goes on to reason out the righteousness of such a course. He says, on page 147: “Either the apostles were from God, or they were not; if they were, everything was to be believed; if they were not, there was nothing to believe.” It is plain from this reasoning that he means to teach that it is not for one to decide the truth or error of what is taught, but the duty of each is to decide whether the teacher is from God, or not. If the decision is that he is from God, it must follow that he can not err, so whatever he teaches is to be received without question. This is what the cardinal defines as faith in God and the revelation of his will to man.

But even this point will be speciously fortified by the cardinal, as we proceed. The author justifies his conclusion from a statement by Paul wherein he thanks God that the Thessalonian church received what he brought to them as the “word of God,” rather than the word of men. 1 Thess. 2:13. This is backed up by another quotation in chapter 4:8, which declares that “he therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit.”

This is all true when one affects to despise the genuine word of God, given through an inspired apostle or prophet. But this same scripture does not distinctly point out the person or party to be so highly honored of God. The alleged proof that the Papacy holds such a position has not thus far been brought forward. There is, however, a point in this worth noticing, since it is the ground on which the Bible is ruled out of reach of the common people.

The cardinal says, on pages 162, 163: “You will sometimes hear of Catholics falling away, who will tell you it arose from reading the Scriptures, which opened their eyes to the unscripturalness, so they speak, of the church of the living God. No; Scripture did not make them disbelieve: (impossible!) they disbelieved when they opened the Bible. They opened it in an unbelieving spirit, and for an unbelieving purpose; they would not have opened it, had they not anticipated—I might say hoped—that they might find things there inconsistent with Catholic teaching. . . . This, then, is the direct and obvious reason why the church can not allow her children the liberty of doubting the truth of her word. . . . Let a man cease to examine, or cease to call himself her child.”

The Papacy forbids the Bible to her lay members on the ground that to read it is to search for what the church has not told them, and this is doubt. The claim is that the sole desire in this prohibition is to preserve faith in God’s living representative on the earth. The cardinal justifies this procedure as a matter of maternal love, calling it “the cords of Adam” that “bind him to the holy church.” See page 165.

He cites as proof of the correctness of this position the fact that the prophet Elisha, after reporting the translation of Elijah, forbade the people to institute a search to ascertain whether the prophet had spoken truly. He adds, significantly: “It is thus that the church ever forbids inquiry in those who already acknowledge her authority; but if they will inquire, she can not hinder it; but they sin in so doing.”—Pages 170, 171.

It may be asked, On what basis can the Papacy induce intelligent men to yield themselves so implicitly to its decrees?—On the same ground, it may be answered, that God required his people of old to obey the voice of the prophet. Thus we have the instruction: “Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper.” 2 Chron. 20:20. Cardinal Newman reasoned thus: “You know there is a God, you know your own ignorance of him. . . . A revelation

would be the greatest possible boon which could be vouchsafed to you.” Then, as if the generally accepted theory were impossible, he exclaims: “A spiritual being abandoned by its Creator! . . . Evidence that God has spoken you must have, else were you a prey to imposture.”

But how, in what way, does the Papacy teach that God speaks to his people? The cardinal continues: “You see the question lies between the church and no divine messenger at all; there is no revelation given us, unless she is the organ of it. Your anticipation has failed, your probability has been falsified, if she is not the prophet of God.”

This is a bold claim, if nothing more. But the cardinal will proceed, as he believes, to fasten this claim upon the world.

He brings forward other churches than his own, and states that of them which can not be gainsaid. Of them he says: “You would exercise your judgment and criticism on what they said, and would never think of taking their word as decisive; they are in no sense prophets, oracles, or judges of supernatural truth; and the contrast between them and the Catholic Church is a preliminary evidence in her favor.”—Page 208.

It is a pity that in rejecting the prophetic gift the professed churches of Christ have placed themselves where so much criticism of their spiritual standing is true. It has but opened the way for this church, with so blurred a history, to make a claim for herself that the others should have always maintained by de facto evidence. The cardinal, however, maintains his contention in the following definition of a prophet, and his application of the same:—

“A prophet is one who comes from God, who speaks with authority, who is ever one and the same, who is precise and decisive in his statements, who is equal to successive difficulties, and can smite and overthrow error. Such has the Catholic Church shown herself in her history; such is she at this day. She alone has the divine spell of controlling the reason of man, and of eliciting faith in her word from high and low, educated and ignorant, restless and dull-minded.”

Mountain View, Cal.