The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-01-20

|
er you find words of Our Lord to es-
| tablish this right.
If they have now rejected the author
ity of the Pope, for $50 years, their
title and right to do so has never beer
| found yet. The authority they reject
ed has not been paralyzed. Those who
withdrew did hurt only themselves
But the old church without any change
went on accomplishing always faith
fully it's mission as st. Peters vessel
| steering under all sorts of wind, sus-
| tanning all sorts of attacks, but she
was always victorious over the as
saults of the power of hell in accord
ance with the promise of Christ.
Proposition 2. There is no evil
dence," you say, that Peter ever
transmitted his primacy to any sue
ceSsor.''
First of all you admit here Peters
primacy, and question its transmission.
Answer-All depends on what you
understand by evidence and what evil
dence will convince you.
If you admit only words. unequivocal
words of the mouth of Christ as evil
dence, remember well that challenge
your right Or anybody's right to do SOY
then you are hard to please. You
might as well deny and reject the
sun, the moon and all the stars. with
this argument, because our Lord never
stated that they exist. But if Peter
has received a primacy-and we have
proved that he hast must continue
in his successors, unless you may say
that either the church was founded on
ly for Peters time, or it was to be
- III hot CRY
position which you cannot prove and
which, consequently, are rejected
Therefore ST. Peter has transmitted his
primacy to his successors. You may
call this inferential guessing. Other
people call it common sense reasoning.
You say yet that the only valid evil
dence respecting st. Peters actions are
his own writings.
You know, of course, that the differ
ent parts of Holy Scripture were writ
ten by different sacred writer's. each
having a particular end or object to
write about. Therefore it is illogical to
conslude the non-existence of a
thing because the sacred writer does
not mention it. You are not alone In
committing this fallacy.
Nobody at st. Peters time doubted
of his primacy; there was no question
about it, and now after 1900 years come
the fathers of Professionalism and try
from this to conclude his primacy
away. There would be more logis in
my assertion if I did say thus: THE
only valid argument against our prop
ositions would be nothing less then
the positive affirmation of Holy Writ,
or undeniable historical witnesses to
the non-existence or the non-trans-
mission of st. Peters primacy to his
successors. After it has been estab-
lished by Christ, it exists and the
onus prohandi of its cessation falls on
whomsoever undertakes to deny this
accepted fact"
Proposition g. In all probability, Pc
ter was never in Rome.
Answer-This sounds very modest
and unassuming, but, dear DR.. Bishop,
l am afraid that your historical learn
ing is not much above the patristic
Let me quote you a list of fair-minded
non-Catholic scholars who admit the
fact as beyond an question, viz: Gro
titus, Cave, Lardner, Whitby, Mac
knight, Hales, CTudius, MINISTER,
Sehaff, Neander, Steiger, De Wftte,
Wieseler. Credner, Bleck, Meyer, Hill
genfeld, Renan, Mangold. THAT Peter
was at Rome" says Cave, land held
the see there for some time, we fear
lessly affirm with the whole multitude
of the arcients.' (Scriptor Ecc1es. HIS
torfa Lfteraria VOL I, p. 5, cited by Liv-
ius).
DIR. Lardner writes: TT is the gem
eral, uncontradicted. disinterested tes-
timony of ancient writer's in the sew
eral parts of the world-Greeks. La
tins, Syrfans.'r
Pearson declares: 'Since it has been
handed downsfrom almost the begin
ming that St-tPeter preached the Cos
pei in Rome, and there suffered mar
tyrdom, and since no one has ever af-
firmed that either Peter Or Paul was
crowned with martyrdora- elsewhere. I
think, with full securitys faith NAV be
given TO this account
Winston, the translator of the works
of Josephus, says: THAT st. Peter
was at Rome is so clear in Christian
antiquity that it is a shame for any
Protestant to confess that any Protes-
tant ever denied it. (Memoirs, Ionaon). !
CONCLUSION.
The foregoing evidence is sufficient
70 convince fair minded person. If !
1iie texts quoted from Our Lord are
iiot eApiielt enough, the common ac-
ceptance of them by the great Tor
lty of peoples and individuals If the
Christian world shows how Ties. ,,,orae |
We're understood from the beginning !
Now it is inconceivable thai ca !,
ter the accomplishment of the b,,r,an
redemption by the Incarnatiop and |
Passion of Jesus Christ. could nerrnit |
the church, in spite of His promises "a /,
go astray. ~
hoping that you will give dine CON !
slderauon to my three proposifions r !
remain, dear sir.
Yours respectfully. |