Papal Infallibility and Transubstantiation by John Norton Loughborough

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 5, 1874

Papal Infallibility and Transubstantiation.

By John Norton Loughborough

We now call attention to some of the peculiar claims and doctrines of the papacy. The first we will notice is their doctrine of infallibility. To get a statement of this doctrine in their own words, we will quote from their own writings. In Weninger’s Jesuit Catechism we read as follows:—

“Q. Will the true church of Christ remain to the end of time, such as she has been till now? “A. Yes; the church is imperishable. “Q. Did Christ promise that his church should last till the end of time? “A. Yes; for he said to St. Peter, ‘Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ ‘Behold, I am with you all days, unto the end of the world.’ Matt. 16 and 28. “Q. How do the Holy Fathers bear witness to the perpetuity of the church? “A. St. Jerome says: ‘The church is founded on Peter; no storm can shake, no tempest overthrow, it.’ “Q. What gift did Christ bestow on her to shield her against error? “A. The gift of infallibility. “Q. What do you mean by saying that the church is infallible? “A. That she cannot err in matters of faith or morals.”

We quote still further from the same catechism respecting the pope. “Q. Whom did Christ appoint as head of his church, and his vicar, on earth? “A. St. Peter. “Q. How did Christ appoint St. Peter head of his church? “A. He addressed St. Peter solemnly, in the midst of all his apostles: ‘Thou art Peter; and on this rock I will build my church; and I will give thee the keys of Heaven,’ Matt. 16. “Q. How does the Holy Scripture indicate the superiority of St. Peter over the other apostles? “A. Wherever Holy Writ names the apostles, St. Peter is mentioned first. “Q. Who is the successor of St. Peter? “A. The pope. “Q. What do you understand by saying that the pope is supreme judge in matters of faith? “A. That, when deciding, as pope and head of the church on matters of faith, he cannot err.”

Here then is their doctrine of infallibility, stated in their own words, with their proofs. Their principal proof is that Peter is the rock on which the church is built, and that Christ gave Peter the keys of Heaven. But I will present some of their own authority to show that Peter is not the rock. They rely largely on the testimony of the fathers for their doctrine, and the Council of Trent said: “The Roman Catholic church receives the Scriptures according to the unanimous interpretation of the Holy Fathers.” Now, the Fathers are not unanimous in calling Peter the rock; so, according to Catholic authority, Peter is not the rock. Let us see. St. Hilary, in his sixth book on the Holy Trinity, says: “The building of the church is upon this rock, namely, Peter’s confession; thus faith is the foundation of the church.” St. Ambrose, on the mystery of the incarnation, said: “The foundation of the church is the faith of Peter. . . . The church is built, not upon Peter, but upon the faith of Peter.” St. Hierom, in his commentary on the prophet Amos, says: “Christ is the rock, who granted to his apostles to be also called rocks.” The Greek has two words in this case. “Thou art Peter,” petros, a little stone; “On this rock will I build my church,” petra, a great rock. The petros is Peter, the petra is Christ, and it is upon petra—Christ—that the church is built.

As to Peter receiving the keys, it was only in the sense that he received a part in the gospel commission to preach those truths which, if obeyed, would lead people to Heaven, but if disobeyed would shut them out of Heaven.

Concerning the infallibility of the church of Rome, there seems to be some dispute among themselves as to where their infallibility is located. Some say it is in the pope. We ask, Which one? These popes contradict one another. “Pope Gregory the great says, ‘He who assumes the title of universal bishop is Satan;’ and Gregory VII. says, ‘The bishop of Rome is universal.’ Leo IX. is for, and Gregory XIII. against, infallibility. Pope Vigilius is against, and Innocent III. for, transubstantiation. Pius V., by a bull, declared the breviary correct. Urban VIII. declared the breviary of Pius V. full of errors. Sextus V. pronounced the Bible published by him correct. Clement VIII. says the Bible of Sextus V. contained two thousand capital errors. Clement XIV., by an infallible bull, suppressed the Jesuits as fatal to the church and society. Pius VII., by another infallible bull, re-established the Jesuits as useful to the church and society—infallible (?)”

Bellarmin locates the infallibility in a general council. He says of general councils, “They are entitled to make new dogmas of faith, and cannot err, being God himself.” The same questions arise concerning the councils: Which ones are infallible, or are they all infallible? “The French receive the Councils of Basle and Constance; the Italians reject them. . . . Some councils taught heresies. Constantinople taught that those baptized by heretics must be rebaptized. One of the Councils of Laodicea taught that the soul of man is a corporeal being. . . . Nice condemned Arius, and Constantinople absolved him. Constantinople condemned Nice; Lateran condemned Basle. A Council of Ephesus condemned Eutyches, and nineteen years afterward a second council of the same Ephesus absolved him. The Ecumenical Council of Constantinople declared the bread and wine images of Christ’s body in Heaven. Lateran and Trent pronounced the fullest transubstantiation. Constantinople and Basle asserted that councils are superior to the pope; Lateran opposed the claim. Laodicea excluded the Apocrypha; Trent adopted them all.”

Some claim that the bulls of popes are infallible. Bellarmine says, “A bull is certainly inspired by the Holy Ghost. If you try you will find infallibility in all bulls.” Over three thousand bulls have been issued by popes, and they are just as contradictory as the councils or the sayings of popes. On the subject of infallibility, read the words of Kirwan: “Under all the circumstances of the case, this claim is truly ludicrous. Where is the seat of infallibility? Some say it resides in the pope. But how is he made infallible? The pope dies; an election for a new one is ordered. He is to be elected from the cardinals, all fallible men, if not worse. After endless intrigue, and boundless corruption, and numerous ballotings, the lot falls upon a fallible cardinal. Will you tell me how such an election makes him infallible? . . . Some say the seat of infallibility is a general council. But how is this? Here are three hundred fallible men assembled in general council; how do they become infallible? Will you tell me the process? How do finites make an infinite? Heap them up as you may, are they not a heap of finites? And crowd together as many fallible men as you may, are they anything else than a crowd of fallibles? But by what chemical or alchemical process can you deduce the infallible from the fallible?”

“Nor is this the worst. We find one general council denouncing another—the church of one age contradicting the church of another. The seat of infallibility is thus undetermined by you; whilst the proofs of your church’s fallibility fill the world. It is infallibly certain that your church is fallible.” But the last Ecumenical Council has decided that the pope is infallible.

The next point of papal doctrine which I will notice is that of transubstantiation, and as to what they mean by it, I will quote their own words. “Q. What is transubstantiation? “A. It is the change of the substance of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.”

Now read from John Hughes’ Catechism. “Q. What is the holy eucharist? “A. The holy eucharist is a sacrament which contains really and indeed the body and blood, the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the forms and appearances of bread and wine. . . . “Q. Does anything remain of the blood and wine after consecration? “A. After consecration nothing remains of the substance of the bread, which is totally changed into that of the body of Jesus Christ, and the substance of the wine is changed into that of his blood, which change is called transubstantiation. “Q. How is this change effected? “A. The change called transubstantiation is effected through the almighty power of God, by the words of Jesus Christ spoken by the priest in the mass. “Q. Is there anything under the form of bread but the body of Jesus Christ? “A. Under the form of bread, there is Jesus Christ, whole and entire, his blood, as well as his body, his soul, his divinity. “Q. Is only the blood of Christ under the form of wine? “A. Jesus Christ is wholly under the form of wine. “Q. When the priest breaks the consecrated host, does he also break the body of Jesus Christ? “A. Jesus Christ is under the forms in such a manner that he cannot be divided; hence, when the host is divided, Jesus Christ is whole under each part.”

In James Butler’s Catechism we read:— “Q. What is the blessed eucharist? “A. The body and blood, soul and divinity, of Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine. . . . “Q. What do you mean by the appearance of bread and wine? “A. The taste, color, and form of bread and wine, which still remain after the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ.”

Concerning the communion, let us read again from Weninger’s Catechism: “Q. Are we obliged to receive the holy eucharist? “A. Yes; for Jesus instituted it as the food of our souls, and he commands us to receive it, saying: ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.’ John 6. “Q. Must the faithful receive under both forms? “A. No; only the priest, who offers the sacrifice, must receive under both forms. “Q. Why did the church command the faithful to receive under the form of bread alone? “A. For very important reasons, and in particular to prevent the desecration of the blessed sacrament by spilling the sacred blood.”

The words of Christ in instituting the sacrament, Matt. 26, as well as Paul’s testimony respecting it in 1 Cor. 1, show that each individual in partaking of the communion is to drink as well as to eat. But we learn in the above catechism that the church has permitted the priests to drink all the wine for fear the people will spill it.

Now what about all this claim that the bread and wine are each a complete Christ, soul, body, and divinity? This whole argument is based on the words, “This is my body.” Of this, Gavazzi says: “The word which has been improperly translated (by the Latin hoc est, ‘is,’) is the (Greek) word esti, which word is the third person of a verb, whose meaning is not ‘to be,’ but ‘to signify;’ so that the passage, correctly translated, stands, ‘This (bread) signifies my body.’ . . . But what is the true mode of making the Scriptures clear—of ascertaining the precise meaning of any word employed in them? Manifestly, a comparison of the use of that word in the passage under examination with its use in other passages of the same Scriptures. Now, take all the passages where this verb esti occurs. It occurs in all the passages I shall mention. ‘The seven ears of corn are seven years.’ But are they literally and materially seven years? No; they signify seven years. ‘The seven stars are the angels of the churches,’ that is, not that the stars are literally angels, but signify angels. In Revelation, ‘The seven heads are seven mountains,’ that is, signify mountains.”

Let us now try this doctrine of transubstantiation by the three popish sources of faith, popes, councils, and Fathers. Gavazzi says on this point: “Now it is true that Innocent III. and Pius IV. very clearly pronounced the transubstantiation; but Pope Vigilius, equally infallible, says very clearly also that the bread and wine in the Lord’s supper are figures of the flesh and blood of Christ. Pope Gelasius, in his authentic treatise against Eutyches, writes, ‘The substance or nature of the bread and wine ceases not to exist, and assuredly the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.’”

“Next as to the councils. The councils of Lateran, Constance, and Trent sustain transubstantiation; but, on the other hand, the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople asserts that the bread and wine are merely images of the vivifying body of Jesus Christ, living in Heaven.”

“Now for the third and most important branch of the popish rule of faith, the consent of all the Holy Fathers. . . . Tertullian against Marcion, book v., says, ‘The bread which he had taken and distributed to his disciples, he made his body by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body.’ Clemens Alexandrinus, in his Pedagogue, repeatedly writes, book i., ‘The wine allegorizes the blood.’ Book ii., ‘Scripture has called wine a mystical symbol of the blood.’ Origen assures (Com. on Matt.), ‘Neither is it the matter of the bread, but the words spoken over it, which profit him that doth eat, not unworthily. And these things I speak of the typical and symbolical body.’ . . . Jerome against Jovin (book ii.) ascertains, ‘He did not offer water but wine as a type of his blood.’ Chrysostom says (Sermon on Matt.), ‘For if Jesus did not die, of what are the things we perform the symbols?’ Augustine affirms (Chris. Doctrine, v., 3), ‘Unless ye shall eat the flesh,’ &c. It is a figure, teaching us that we partake of the benefits of the Lord’s passion, and that we must sweetly and profitably treasure up in our memories that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.”

We might quote more of these favorite Fathers of the Romish church, such as Justin, Cyprian, Eusebius, Cæsareensis, Cyril of Jerusalem, but we will only quote the words of one more, Ambrose, as found in the 4th book of the Sacraments, “In eating and drinking the things which are offered for us, we signify the flesh and blood. You receive the sacrament as a similitude; it is the figure of the body and blood of the Lord. You drink the likeness of his precious blood.”

We have quoted these fathers, not for ourselves; for the Bible is plain and all-sufficient, but the Catholic rule is, “The unanimous consent of all the Fathers.” If they have Fathers to oppose to those quoted, then it shows that their Fathers are not agreed on this question. I think the Bible sufficiently plain and clear that the bread and wine are emblems of Christ’s body and blood.

Cicero, the ancient pagan, in his treatise on the nature of gods, “De Natura Deorum,” says, “We have so many follies about our divinities that only one more can be invented, namely, that a man may eat his God.” We close our remarks upon this subject of transubstantiation by saying that it seems to us that what Cicero called a “folly” is more than fulfilled in the church of Rome, when she asks her children to believe that they eat, not only the flesh and blood, but the soul and divinity of their God.

J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.