The San Francisco call., 1896-02-08

supreme power in his church.
Against this argument DR.. Wendte has MOTH
ing to say
THE POWER OF BINDING AND LoosING.
The expression to bind and to loose was
common one among the Jews. 1t meant
legislative power. Hence when 1T is given to
Peter it signifies that he is the lawglver for the
whole church.
DR.. Wendte objected that this power was
given to all the apostles as well as to Peter.
and therefore that each individual possesses 1t
as well as Peter.
I admitted that the legislative power was
given to the whole church, Peter included.
denied that it was given personally to each
believer. One might as reasonably suppose
that each member of Congress has power to
make laws because he belongs to a legislative
body. Christ made the church legislative
body; he did not make each member capable OF
passing laws alone.
l noted, however. that Christ singled out
Peter and gave to him personally the power ne
gave the church. He alone was given supreme
legislative authority because Christ had made
him head of the church.
To this argument DIR. Wendte only answered
that was manipulating scripture.
Fourth-The commission to confirm the
brethren.
From the words of Christ at the Last Supper
by which st. Peter was singled out from the
eleven and prayed for by name and commits
stoned to 'eonfrm his brethren" drew the
natural conclusion that Peter was invested by
Christ with an extraordinary power over the
other disciples.
DR.. Wendte, with q logical acumen charac-
teristic of Oakland scholarship, quotes Janus
TO show that the text does not prove the lnIal-
llbilty of the Pope. l suppose must inform
DR.. Wendte that the authority of the Pope ana
the intallibility OF the Pope are two very Gil
ferent things. l undertook to demonstrate
that Peter had received an extraordinary
authority over the disciples. DR.. Wendte re-
torts the Pope is not infallible. Truly, the
ways of Oakland scholarship are wonderful.
But let us see what there is In Dr. Wendte's
quotation.
Every one knows the one classical passage
of Scripture on which the edifee OF Papa. in
fallibility has been raised: have prayed
for thee, that thy faith fail not, ana when thou
art converted confirm thy brethren But
these words manifestly refer only to Peter per-
sonally, to his denial of Christ and to his con-
version; he is told that he whose failure OF
faith would be OF short duration is to
strengthen the other Apostles, whose faith
would likewise waver. 1t is directly against
the sense of the passage, which speaks simply
of faith, first wayering, and then to be con-
hrmed in the Messianic dignity of Christ,
to find in it promise OF future infallibility TO
succession of Popes, just because they hold
the Office Peter first held in the Roman church.
No single writer to the end of the seventh cen
tury dreamed of such an Interpretation; all
without excepHon-and there are eighteen OF
them-explain 1t simply as prayer OF Christ
that his Apostle might not wholly succumb,
and lose his faith entirely in his approaching
trial" (Janus p. T4-I5.)
DR.. Wendte quotes these as Doellinger's S sem
timents. How accurate he and his az thorities
are may be learned from the following quota
u.
But the promise of Christ. alleged by the
infalliblists, their opponents win not admit, at
least not 10 an equal degree. The passage in
Luke xxii:32 applies, according to Janus, to
Peter personally, to mis- denial and his conver-
sion. This, however, Catholic theologians
deny. No matter how the word 'epistrepsas'
tial unity between the special occasion. and
the significance of Christ's word of promise.
embracing, as it does, all times, may
be easily established The See OF Peter OBJ
stVQ n aDna rllQ nf
truth, citadel OF firm faith, conducting to the
strength of all; for the words as we'll as the
prayers of our Lord were addressed not merely
TO the individual person, and for the imme-
diate moment, but they were meant to lay an
enduring foundation; their significance was,
above all, for the church and for her future
needs, which Christ beheld in spirit
when Janus further observes that not
single doctor of the church, down to the end
OF the seventh century, has given the inter
therefore. the passages of later popes and of
Western teachers, are therefore the splendid
testimonies of the later Greeks, such the
Patriarch John VI OF Constantinopie (anno
715), st. Theodore the Studite (anno S26), ana
the exegetist Theophylactus OF Achrida,
robbed of their weight? But it Is not even
true, as our opponent repeatedly states, that
the first to give this Interpretation was Pope
Agatha in $50, when trying to avert the
threatened condemnation OF his predecessor,
HonOrius.'
''The same Interpretation had on the Sth OF
October, $40, been put forward in Rome by
Bishop Stephen of Dora, the envoy of S. So
phronius, Bishop of Jerusalem, and before him
by the Popes Gelasuis, Pelaguis II and Gregory
the Great, and before these again by the great
Leo. So exceedingly trustworthy are the state
ments of our Janusp'
Fifth-The commission to feed the lambs and
sheep.
Christ gave Peter threefold commission to
feed his lambs and sheep. This commission
implies supreme power over the sheepfold,
which is Christ's church.
DR.. Wendte's answer to this argument is
sublime. He cannot break the force of the
commission, so he calmly takes his scissors and
cuts the whole incident out OF the Scripture.
'rIn the opinion of most scholars of the mod
ern critical school this whole passage John
gospel ends naturally with the last verse of
chapter Xxx. The last chapter is evidently an
order to counteract its glorifcation OF the be-
loved disciple and TO make Peter appear as
the chief apostle"
To this let me add that the critical argu-
ments for the authenticity of the last chapter
are precisely the same as the critical argu-
ments for the rest OF the gospel. 1t is found in
all codices and it is quoted by the earliest
has not been written by John, it is as old as
the fourth gospel. Moreover it is the natural
complement of the gospel. 1t is an epilogue,
built on the same plan as the prologue. AS an
historical account 1t carries just as much
weight as the other chapters, and as an histor-
icsl account consider it now.
Certainly, DR.. Wendte must be determined
to down St Peter when he is willing to sacri-
flee st. John.
These, Mr.. Editor, are the arguments I pro-
duced to prove Che primacy of st. Peter and
these are the answers DR.. Wendte made to the
arguments. Let me consider now the objec-
tions he made to the fact of the primacy itself
from other portions of the Scripture. These
objections may be reduced to two:
d. The church was pure democracy and,
therefore, there was no room for primacy.
(2.) The early history of the church shows no
trace of Peters supremacy.
a. The hierarchy.
DR.. Wendte stated that because Christ ex-
horted his disciples to become as little children
therefore there are no grades or dignities in
the church.
To this answered ta) Christ never said that
there were no dignities in his church.
(b) Christ positively stated that there were
grades and dignities in his church when he
said that his father would choose those who
were to sit at his right hand and at his left.
These two positions were positions of dignity
and power.
(c) Christ declared that there was to be a
chief or head in church when he said: "He
that is greater among you let him become as
the lesser, and he that is chief as one that doth
serve
To this DR.. Wendte replies: "Call no man
father on EARTH" and bids me take note of the
prohibition. remark, however, that he insists
on addressing me as 'tgood' Father Yorke,
though there is a similar prohibition against
calling any one "good" except God.