The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-02-07
The Catholic Clergyman's Caustic
Words to the Oakland
Divine.
SOME LINKS OF THE CHAIN.
The Five Main Points of the Discus.
Sion-Is the Biblical Authority
Sufficient?

To the Editor of the Cdll-DEAR SIR: I remark
with pain that the Rev. DR.. Wendte has yielded
once more to what the old theologians denom-
mated ''the concupiscence OF wrath" His
gentle humor of week ago is overcast and he
makes his exit from the controversy in very
bad temper. am sorry indeed that he should
prove such striking example OF the ineffi-
cacy of good resolutions. However, he came
into the arena of his own free WILL and 1 do
not think that he Is wise IN attempting to ex-
cuse his conspicuous unsuccess by animad-
Terting upon his oppon ents manners.
THE STATE OF THE CONTROVERSY.
On January 10 DR.. Wendte intervened in the
current controversy by declaring his intention
TO prove:
was not supported by scripture or history.
>. That the Catholic theory or doctrine OF
the relations between church and state was
opposedto the American theory or doctrine on
the same subject
8. That Protestant countries, races and men
are superior TO Catholic countries, races and
men.
In the midst of the discussion DR.. Wendte
announced his determination not to treat this
third subject. He offered as his reason an I'M
willingness 10 irritate Catholics. l entreated
him to publish his pamphlet and let us know
the worst at once; but my entreaties were in
vain. Catholics are still shiverlng they
think OF the engine of destruction which Oak
land scholarship holds in reserve. Dr.Wendte's
admirers rest confident that if Rome should
become too obstreperous their champion has
but to hurl his lucubration and, lol Rome will
be no more. Anyhow, the controversy was by
this withdrawal confined to two points,, The
primecy OF st. Peter; II, The relations between
church and state.
THE PRIVACY OF ST. PETER.
In his first letter DR.. Wendte undertook to
prove five points.
l. Peter never received any authority over
. Even If he had, there was nothing to show
that this authority descended to his successors.
3. Peter was never Bishop OF Rome.
4. Peter never abode in Rome for any such
term as is claimed for him in heofficial dec
laraJ1on of the Roman Catholic church.
D. Peter was, in all probability, never in
Rome at all
Notwithstanding the old warning against at
tempting to prove universal negative DR..
Wendte went brayely at his arguments. 1t is
not necessary for me to describe his method.
He confounded several distinct scripture Incl
dents in one, he brought odds and ends of texts
from all over the New Testament, he showed
an unacquaintance with secular and ecclesias-
tical history surprising in one who laid such
claims to scholarship. In answer was com.
PEELED to separate the scripture incidents which
he had confonnded, to examine each text
of scripture which he produced and to correct
his misstatements of historical facts.
DR.. Wendtes answer deserves TO be put on
record:
The Scripture texts and incidents TO which
referred as demonstrating the untenableness OF
the Catholic claimto Peters primary among the
disciples and the great unlikelness of his soourn
and bishopric at Rome are requoted one by
one by Father YOrke and given an entirely differ
ent Interpretation, SO that after his manipulation
they are made TO appear as combinations OF his
contents himself with evadng my statements OF
denying them altogether. And finally, he breaks
by separating each from the other and nibbline
and quibbling about each in detail until the
weared and bewildered loses ali sense OF the logical
connection and cumulative force OF the various
parts OF my augmentation.
This is certainly very extraordinary ad
mission. Dr. Wendte must know that the
strength of q chain is the strength of it,
weakest link. did with his chain or argu
ment what any competent mechanician would
do with chain took up each link separate
ly and examined it. If DR.. Wendte was confused
and wearied by this simple process. his minC
must not be accustomed to logical ratiocina
ton. do not imagine that my readers were
bewildered by performing one of the mos
elementary processes of reasoning.
DR.. Wendte did not attempt to analyZe mi
explanations of the sacred text. He consid
cred that the performance would be unspeak.
ably tiresome, and therefore he leaves the
whole matter to the public. In order, how
ever, that the public may what DR.
Wendte's case amounts to. will take the trou
bic of reviewing the argument in detail.
AS stated above, DR.. Wendte undertook Il
establish five points:
A. Peter never received any authority over thu
other disciples.
B. Even if he had there was nothing to show
that this authority descended to his successors.
c. Peter was never Bishop OF Rome.
d. Peter never abode in Rome for any such tern
is claimed for him in the official declaration o
the Roman Catholic church.
Z; Peter was in all probability never in ROM
at all.
A. PEERS PRIVACY.
In order to show that st. Peter had been in
vested with an thority over the other disciples
proved from the Scripture that
Ffrst-Christ built his church on Peter.
Second-That Christ gave Peter the symbols
of royal authority in the church.
Third-That Christ gave Peter the royal
power of binding and loosing.
Fourth-That Christ gave Peter the power o
confirming the brethren,
Fifth-That Christ gave Peter the commission
TO feed the lambs and sheep.
Let us see how DR.. Wendte treats each argu
ment
First-The rock foundation.
Against the argument drawn from the fac
that Christ had named Simon the Rock an(
had promised to build his church upon tina
rock DR.. Wendte objected:
"a Peter is not the only rock.
90 His name Rock was given on q different
occasion and therefore has no special signifi
canoe.
(c) Peter was the rock simply because hi
took leading part IN spreading the church.
ID Peter was not the rock because Chris
rebuked him and because he denied Christ.
(d) Peter not the only rock.
DIR. Wendte attempted TO show from parable
passages in the Scripture that Peter was no
the.Qnly rock on which the church was built
He Therefore quoted two texts, in one of which
it is said that Christ is the only foundation
and in the otner OF which Christ is called tn,
headstone of the corner.
That DR.. Wendte's objection should be of an,
value he should demonstrate that in both thes'
places the church of Christ is said to be bull
on Thirst himself in the same manner in whlci
Christ says it was 10 be built on Peter
simply made clear by quoting the passage
cited that in neither was there any question
about building the church on rock.
The first passage was shown TO refer TO thu
spiritual life OF the individual Christian
which can be built only on the one foundation
Christ Jesus
The second passage was shown to refer to the
despised stone, which was afterward made the
head of the corner.
DR.. Wendte's only reply to this demonstra
ton of the irrelevancy of his quotations is
1.-THE Scripture texts are requoted one by ont
by Father Yorke and given an entirely differ
ent Interpretation"
If DR.. Wendte, instead of bewailing my dia
lectic devices; had attempted to show tina
these texts could bear any other Interpretation
than the one / have given he might hav,
strengthened his cause, instead of allowing
the case to go by default.
Hence, claim that my opponent has no
shown that "Peter is not the only rock"
(6) The giving of his name.
Dr. Wendte tried to break the force of the ar
gument derived from the name Peter. 1t i
the custom in the Scripture TO signaliZe the
office or destiny of a man by q change of name
Abram was called Abraham, or the "Father o
multitude" because he was destined TO b,
the parent of great nations. Simon's nam,
was changed to Peter, or Rock, because he wa
to be the rock on which Christ would bulk