Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1879-04-15
HAVE POPES TAUGHT
HERESY?
Reply of RishOp Kahn to the
Rev. Samuel Steele.
Editor of the Register.

Reply OF hlSnOp NAM W ehS
Rev. Samuel Steele.
Editor of the Register.
see nothing in the review OF my ser
mon on the Infalibility OF the Pope, by
Rev. Mr.. Steele, which calls for any reply
from me, except his statement that Ger,
tain Popes had taught heresy. Could
this be proved, it would furnish conciu-
sive evidence against the Catholic doc,
trine. But it has not been proved, ana
il cannot be proved. / have no com
ment 10 make on the opinions OF Vigi-
Inns. or any one else, before being raised
10 the Papacy. have not undertaken
TO demonstrate the thesis that man
possesses the same prerogatives before,
that he enjoys after his canonical cleo
ton to the See OF st. Peter.
Mr.. Steele cites two instances to the
points,. Callistus and st. Lephyrlnus,
who occupied the chair of Peter at the
commencement OF the second century.
| thank nv Reverend opponent Tor
recognizing these early Pontitfs as the
predecessors Of the present Holy Father.
For if they were not the genuine sue
cessors of ST. Peter, and the predecessors
nj His Holiness, the Thirteenth Leo, his
argument would fall to the ground.
Now cannot suffer him to both recog-
nize and refuse to recognize them IN
the same issue. Such proceeding
would be vitiated on the ground OF what
LAWYERS call, i believe, mu'tgdr'ous
issue.
have examined with considerable
care the treatise OF st. HippOlytus
AGAINST heresies. and have read all that
Inc saws about Noetus in particular, ana
find no allusion whatever to his ac-
cusation against Xephyrlnus and Callls-
tus viii Mr.. Steele be so good as TO
Indicate the precise place, where that
charge stands recorded? Thinking II
might possibly be found in some OF MS
other writings, have glanced over time
forbids careful scrutiny hls Com-
mcntaries on the books OF the Old ana
New Testament" his "Homilies;' his
book on "Anti-Christ;" his work on
tine Feast of Easter" his "Demon-
STATIONS, ETC." his works Against
Platon:" and some fragmentary collec-
tions. and have failed to discover any
confirmation of Mr.. Steele's charge. In
deed am not at all satisfied that
Noetus had begun TO dogmatlze
az earlvas the Pontiiicatc of Iephyrlnus.
ST. Epiphanius (Haer. c. 81, II. II SAYS,
and he wrote about the year 90,
"N,eius ante hos tcrc cent'm
AZ higintG amos. IL Asid orIunduS.
Now, If he arose only about that tme'
A. u. 245, both Zephyrinus and Calils-
tus were dead before he preached his
errors.
As TO Callistus, | can find no reference
whatever i'm any author, even those VINO
expressly attack the infallibility OF the
Pope as DR.. Schultz, to give any color to
the accusation. As to Pope Zephyrlnus,
| think Mr.. Stcelc's guides have mis-
| led him. Ii was with sanCtloning mon
tanism, presume, they meant to charge
him. This charge rests on the aSser-
ton, not Of the historian, st. Hlppoly-
rus. but of Tertullian. But what
| weight should be given to tins
charge, coming from Testullian? Is he
in this, think you, an unbiased witness
! Testullian himself fell into Montanism,
and the Pope accommodated MN
See his lTcstullian's) own work de
Ieiuniis ch. /, in fine. Is it any Won
der that Testullian dislikes him? But |
furnish direct evidence OF the calumny.
l. 1t was under Lephyrinus and at his
! suggestion, that the celebrated dlsputa-
| ton took place between Proclus, the
/ Montanist, and Gains, Il learned ecclesl-
| astic. According to Enschins (Bk. :,
/ ch. -, y. 90 the whole controversy was
carried on i'm writing. At its close, Pope
! Lephvrinus mathematical the heresy
! of the Montanists, and eXcOmmunicat-
| cd TcSIulllan together with Proclus.
,. Ensebns ok. ), ch. %, PIP. l9G
and 1917 relates the history OF certain
| Natalis, who had become entangled in
| these heresics; but repenting, went to
| Pope Lephyrinus, cast himself at his
! feet and sought forgiveness and recon-
! ciliation. Now it is not probable that a
/ Pope, who absOlvcd others from Mon
tanism and expressly condemned it, was
himself Montanist.
/ 3. ST. Optatus Of Milevum, \. ID. 800
| i'm his work ADV. Parmen. PIX. |, states,
/ that under the successor of Victor (whO
| was LcphvrinuSl PraXcas, Phrygian,
| whose errors were identical with those
/ of Nwtus Of EphcsuS, reCanted, &c.
/ Again assert that it is not at all likely
/ that the Pope himself held the very
errors from which he absolved PraXeas.
| Other proofs | had mapped out in the
| rough, but what need OF more. Have
! not furnished enough and more than
enough of proof, that Mr.. Steele has
| been deceived, and has asserted what
have shown 10 be false?
one passing remark OF this Reverend
opponcntis not worthy of an honorable
controvcrsialist. Stating that Silverius
was the son Of Pope llormisdas, he en-
quircS: did priests marry thcnY'
| Yes, sir: they married then, as they
NAV marry now before taking Holy
Orders When mans wife is
dead he may enter the priest.
hood. The Rev. Mr.. Stone was married,
has two children, and vet he is now a
priest. But Rev. Mr.. Steele meant Ia
convey a very diilrre" meaning. Such
reasoning 6y innucndocS does not be-
come a fair and honorable opponent.
In conclusion, will add that whilst
. there have been some fcw-vcry few
/ Pupcs whose conduct may be i'm.
| pcaChed, Caud none spOre them less than
. Catholic historians yet has the long
| and illustriOuS line of Sovereign POntit7S
received from the hittcrcst enemies OF
the Papacy, both Protestant and infidel
the highest praise for all those virtues
which should adorn the possessOrs OF
theirexaltel dignity. JoHN J. KAHN.
| ULffing, IDrH II, 1879.