Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-08-27


thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. !
he saith to him again: Simon, son of
John, lowest thou me? He saith to him:
Yea, Lord, thou knowest that | love thee.
He saith to him: Feed my lambs:
He saith to him the third
time. Simon, son of John, lowest thou
me? Peter was grleved because He said
to him the third time, ''Lovest thou mel"
And he said to him: Lord, Thou know
est all things: thou knowest that l love
Thee" He said to him? "Feed my
Sheep"
Here Peter is emphatically constituted
universal pastor over the entire flock of
Christ, both lambs and sheep, people
and pastors. sWhat palmer, stronger,
more expressive terms could be used?
What type more suitable for conveying
the idea OF the most ample, spiritual
power conferred upon his chosen apostle
could Christ have selected than that of
shepherd of a sheepfold? What is more
united, docile, and tractable, than flock
Of sheep? Who has more unlimited
authority than shepherd over his sheep
fold? The Greek word IN the original,
interpreted here "feed," is poimaine,
which means to rule, to govern. Hence,
Homer calls the princess poimenes loan
rulers of the people. To feed a flock,
| therefore, is to govern and control all
its movements. Thus David is styled the
shepherd of Gods people, Cyrus, the
| shepherd of God, in the Old Testament.
Thus we findin the gospel that to Peter
| were given five special and distinct
pledges not given to the rest. Firstly,
his name was changed from Simon to
Peter, with prophetic meaning,
Just as the name of the father of the
faithful was changed fromAbram to Abra-
ham. with prophetic meaning. Sec
ondly, he became the rock ON which the
whole church was built. Thirdly. to
| him was given the supreme power of the
keys. Christ gave, it is true, to the
other apostles, when, on the day of the
| resurrection, he breathed upon them,
saying, "Receive We the Holy Ghost"
| participation in and concurrent eXer-
| else of that same power, but always in
| subordination to the primacy which
had been given in the words, 81 will give to
| thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven"
Fourthly, to him our Lord spoke person
ally and alone when he said, "Simon,
| Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have
you''-all of yeu-':that he may sift you"
-all of you--"as wheat" But l have
prayed for thee that thy faith fail not,
and thou being once converted, confirm
thy brethren. And lastly, as st. Angus
tine and other fathers point out, to Peter
alone were said these words: "Feed my
lambs--feed my Sheep repeated three
| times, as it were In rebuke and forgive
ness of the three denials he had made of
his divine master. Now these five spe-
cial privileges contain two great powers
| hn ny,n nf flo0 I,
er the promise of perpetual divine assist
| ance, which promise is a real power
| These two powers or prerogatives consti-
tute what is called the primacy Of Peter,
not primus inter pares, as Layman will
have it, but prlnceps super omnes, as
our Lord has it.
will now use Layman's own argu-
ment, which he must say is a good one,
in his own words. "There cannot be
| two parallel and contemporaneous lines
of plenary power and authority respect
ing the same subject matter. If the su-
preme power and authority to rule and
to teach infallibly was committed by our
Lord to Peter,' and have shown it was,
then sex natura rel, this power and au-
thority could not have been committed
to'' the other apostles, and Layman
| ..
Has Layman shown that this supreme
power and authority have been given to
all the apostles, or have 1 shown they
have been given to Peter alone? Let the
readers of the Sunday GLOBE determine.
The "pivotap' point is there. l own
that in all this l am logically transgress-
ing the claw of Parsimony,'' as Sir VIM.
Hamilton styles it. But l like occasionally
to run in an intellectual tilt or tourna-
ment, and, like the arrow, the blade
"doth love shining mark l might
have made short work of it thus: Lay
man grants me there is now on earth an
infalllble body; this infallible body l
have proved 10 be the Catholic church;
but the Catholic church, speaking
through the Vatican council, sOlemnly
and officially declares that the supremacy
and infallibility of Peter, and of his sue
cessor, the pope, have been divinely given
and as such are dogmas of faith. There
fore the body corporate instituted by
Christ had in the beginning all its pow
ers from Christ because of its union with
Peter, the head, and it has them TO-DAY
because of its union with Leo, his sue
cessor.
| Layman had heen quoting two passages
from st. Matthew, one found in chapter
Is, the other in chapter Is, and then
gravely says: "These two passages must
be construed together in such manner
as will, if possible, give effect to both"
| Whoever does not see here the straits to
which the gentleman is reduced TO find
it possible to give even shadow of an
''effect'' to his argument, should adver-
tise for pair of mental spectacIes forth
with. Let no man join together what
God hath put asunder, say, for L do not
think it would be fair in me, addressing
Layman, to join together these two sepa-
rated paragraphs: "Judas went and
hanged HIMSELF" $50, thou, and do
likewise though lido feel Horace nudg-
ing my elbow, while whispering in my
ear: "Nolentem qul servat, idem facit
occidente." And what would not be fair
in me ought not to be reckoned fair in
Layman. ''Fa1r play is bopny play"
now come to Layman's "philogical
question" into which he says ''the cele-
brated text quoted above' resolves itself,
on which the whole argument hinges,
viz: the meaning of the word Peter "The
word translated Peter is Petros" in the
original Greek, he tells US: ''the word
| translated rock is petra.'' And after say
ing that "Bishop Ireland-as many other
theologians, both Roman and Protestant,
have done before him-anxiously calls
Il nr1r g. 71,@k l.