Your ShelfYour Projects

Peculiarities of the Papal Church

7%

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 21, 1874

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 43, No. 19.

Read the full edition

Peculiarities of the Papal Church.

By John Norton Loughborough

The peculiarities most apparent and striking in the Romish church, are infallibility, transubstantiation, masses, purgatory, absolution, indulgences, penance, worship of images, relics of the saints, invocation of the saints, works of supererogation, celibacy of the clergy, monasteries and monks, convents and nuns, Jesuits and various orders—as St. Sylvester and others—church processions, holy water, holy wafers, &c. These doctrines, forms, and appendages, peculiar to the Romish church, were not introduced by Christ or his apostles. The manner and time of the introduction of each may be read in the history of the bulls, edicts, and councils of the Catholic church, but not in the Bible.
The Protestant rejects all these because not in the Bible, claiming that the Bible is his only standard of faith. The papist takes the Bible, not as Bible simply, but as explained by tradition and the glosses of the Romish church, and in this manner the way is opened for the introduction of heresy. Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria both state that apostolical tradition was the best arm, if not the capital invention, of the first heretics. Basilides stated that he had his doctrine by tradition from Glaucias, the interpreter of St. Peter. So Valentine had his from Theodotus, familiar to St. Paul. Marcion claimed to get his doctrines by tradition from the disciples of St. Matthew and Mark. Even some of the ancient fathers themselves show in their testimony how the heretics were smuggling in their so-called apostolical traditions. “Tertullian against Hermogenes said, ‘The school of Hermogenes may demonstrate that the things it teaches are written; for, if not written, then it must fear the anathema which is destined to all who add to or take away from the Scriptures.’ Basilius, who came after, says, ‘To reject what is in the Scriptures, or to receive what never was written, is an evident mark of infidelity.’ . . . Hierom says, ‘All that is taught without the authority, and without the testimony of the Holy Scriptures as if it were of apostolical tradition, is struck by the sword of God.’”
To learn how the Catholics do regard the Bible, I will quote from one of their Catechisms. “Q. Where do you find the Scriptures entire and unaltered? A. In the Catholic church, to which God has intrusted these Holy Scriptures, through the apostles. Q. Who explains the true meaning of the Scriptures? A. The Catholic church. Q. May every Christian read the Scriptures? A. Yes; provided he reads them according to the spirit of the church, and with the explanations which she gives of them.”
Remember, this quotation is from a Jesuit Catechism, and that Jesuit’s statements are sometimes made “with mental reservation.” The catechism is a Cincinnati catechism, and hence for a Protestant country. If we wish to get a genuine papal sentiment, for a papal country, let us take testimony in other lands, at other times.
“The Council of Trent, which first met in A. D. 1545, appointed certain of its members to draw up rules concerning prohibited books; these rules were approved by Pius IV. Now listen to the fourth of these rules, as it bears directly on the subject in hand. It is as follows: ‘Whereas it is evident from experience that, if the Sacred Books be permitted in the vulgar tongue indiscriminately, more harm than good arises therefrom, by reason of the temerity of men; in this respect, let it depend on the discretion of the bishop or inquisitor, so that with the council of the parish priest or confessor, they may permit the reading of the Bible, translated into the vulgar tongue by Catholic authors, to those persons whose piety and faith they apprehend will be augmented and not injured thereby; and this permission they must have in writing. But if any one shall have the presumption to read or possess it without such permission, he shall not receive absolution, until he has first delivered up the Bible to the ordinary.’”
Peter Dens, whose work on Moral Theology was taught in several Roman Catholic colleges, till superseded by that of Alphonsus Liguori, distinctly says in reference to this rule of the index, that “this law has been received and maintained with some variation, according to the peculiar genius of nations, in by far the greater part of the [Roman] Catholic world; nay, in the whole of that part which is completely [Roman] Catholic; only more indulgence has been granted in the case of those who have to live among presumed heretics.”
Christ says, “Search the Scriptures.” Rome says, You must have my permission before you venture to obey Christ’s command. Paul says, “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of the Lord.” But Rome fears the faith of some will be injured by having the Bible to read. I presume it would destroy their faith in many Roman dogmas to find by reading the Bible that these dogmas were not there.
“Pope and Bible cannot go together; and, therefore, the popes have always absolutely prohibited the reading of the Bible. Roman Catholic divines may call it a lie—but I am ready to prove my position. Pope Innocent III. issued a bull against the Waldenses, the first translators of the Bible into a vernacular tongue, and commanded that all their books should be burned, the main part of which was the Bible, translated into the Romanza language. The Council of Toulouse forbade the reading of the Bible in any vernacular tongues. The Council of Bologna in Italy forbade the general reading of the Bible, and especially the gospel of Christ. The famous bull “Unigenitus” forbade the reading of the Bible, and not in a special way, namely, against Bible societies, but in a general one, namely, against Bible as Bible. The fourth rule of the “Index Expurgatorius” forbids the reading of the Bible, under the pretext that more harm than good comes from the reading of the Bible; so that, by this rule, the Bible must be considered the greatest corrupter of Christian morality. Can any popish priest deny those five popish documents? No; therefore the popes absolutely forbid the reading of the Bible.”
“As the ancient popes forbade the reading of the word of God, so the modern popes forbid the reading of the word of God. . . . All the late popes, Pius VI, Pius VII., Leo XII., Pius VIII., Gregory XVI., Pius IX., no one excepted, all have forbidden the reading of the word of God. . . . In Rome, Archdeacon Beresford had some scriptural passages written on the tombstone of his wife. . . . Very Holy Father, Pius IX. declared it was not right to have such sentences placed under the eyes of the good Roman people; and these scriptural words, graven by pure piety and tender affection on the grave of a departed wife, were all effaced from the stone by order of Christ’s vicar upon earth, His Holiness, Pius IX.”
Pius IX., in his bull, bearing date of May 8, 1844, says, “Moreover, we confirm and renew the decrees recited above, delivered in former times by apostolic authority, against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the Holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue.”
Read the following testimony borne by Kirwan, in 1851, concerning the condition of Rome: “There is no Bible in Rome. I made my inquiries there for a Bible, but without success. The people have no Bible—they know nothing about it. An intelligent man of fifty told me he never saw one. Multitudes of the priests know nothing about it, and when asked why they have none for sale, the booksellers will tell you that it is prohibited. Captain Packenham, once a banker in the city, and a most respectable gentleman and devout Christian, is now in banishment for circulating the Scriptures there during the short existence of the Republic. Much of true religion consists in knowing God and Jesus Christ; and how can they be known by a people from whom the Bible is excluded?”
“But,” says the papist, “you are allowed to read the Bible here, according to the explanation which the church gives it?” Hear Kirwan on this point, “But, admitting, for the sake of the argument, that I am bound to receive the Scriptures as your church interprets them, then will you answer me a few questions. How am I to obtain her sense of them? On the greater part of the Scriptures she has given forth no binding interpretation. At what period of the life of holy mother am I most likely to get a true interpretation? Is it when she was Arian with Pope Liberius? or when she was pagan with Marcellinus? or when she was Pelagian with Pope Clement XI.? or when she was infidel with Leo X.? or when strumpets were her waiting maids with John XII. and Alexander? or is it when she was drunk with the blood of the martyrs? or when rival popes were tearing out each others’ bowels? or is it when in the height of her charity she was thundering her curses from Trent against all who refused to say Amen to her decisions? These, sir, are very important questions to be answered, as I may be Arian, Pelagian, or infidel, a Calvinist, or an Armenian, according to the time I seek from holy mother her interpretations of the word of God. Perhaps my reverence for the venerable old lady, now in her wrinkles and dotage, might be greater than it is, were it not for my sense of her dissolute and changeful life.”
The Catholics profess to take the Bible as explained by the fathers and the church. But these fathers did not profess to originate the Bible or its doctrines. “Basilius, Cyrillus, and Augustine, said, ‘Do not receive our teachings as doctrines, but try them by the Holy Book and the inspired word; and if you find them according to that word, receive them as being so, but not as our doctrines.’”
J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.