The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-01-23

again in the discussion which we car
ried on in a friendly way and which
has drifted so far from the original
question. But friends whose opinions
1 value have asked me to touch upon
the historical side of the matter and
in doing so may clear the atmosphere
by going to the basic principle upon
! which you insist
BY way of Introduction / must say,
my dear sir, that you remind me of a
boy who went to school with me. We
used always to put him forward in any
, fight because he never knew when he
was whipped Having entirely aban-
doned your first position, and having
never made any attempts to answer
my historical statements in regard to
the time of Henry VIII, you endeavor-
ed to cover your retreat by repeating
your improved assumption, and then
firing all along the line a series of
homilies on the doctrines of the Roman
Church including those of infallibility
and intention.
However, the discussion did good, for
it led some of your own people to read
, independent history. One of these, a
prominent and intelligent Roman Ca
| tholic layman, said to me the other
day: II see that you have had a dis
cussion with Father James," Yes I
replied, land I hope that said nothing
, to offend YOU" NO." he said. ION the
4. contrary 1 have been much interested.
and I have looked the matter up and
1 find that have had an incorrect
opinion. I have been taught that the
Church of England was founded by
Henry VIII, but I have read, and find
that history more than sustains you in
all that you have written on the sub
ject." In what follows that gentleman
and others of your flock who will read
will find that history will bear me out
in all that I write.
In glancing over what you have
written, honestly, my dear sir, it seems
to me that it may be analysed as fol-
lows: sis
Pure assumption 80 parts
Argument based on said as
sumption 40 parts
Residuum capable of treatment. parts
Total 100
OF course it is impossible to answer
assumption and therefore 1 go to the
residuum and find in it the constantly
repeated words of our Lord: Thou
art Peter and upon this rock / will
build my church" 1 showed conclu-
sively in a former letter that the New
Testament and the early Fathers in
their writings were silent in regard
to any such officer as Pope. You later
made a statement which you refer to
in your letter to DR.. Bishop as telling
your opponent that is myself. In look
ing back l find that these are your
words. There is a big flaw in your
argument. The alleged silence of these
authors does not justify the conclusion
to its non-exiStence. If any contem-
porary book or magazine or newspaper
does not mention our governor or pres
ident or republic will it be logical for
historians to conclude 1000 years after
that those persons and things did not
exist?" The day this appeared an in
telligent school boy came to me and
comes back to him like a boomerang.
This is how the question should be
stated: Suppose that the constitution
of the United States had no reference
to any such official as President, and
supposing further that not a solitary
historian or writer for more than
hundred years had a single reference
to any such official as President, then
the inevitable conclusion would be that
there was no such official in the early
DAYS of the United States. Yes. my
dear boy" I said, land in the case Of
the Pope this is further emphasized by
the fact that the Greek Catholic
Church, with it's millions of Christians,
does now and always has protested
against the papacy as an innovation,
contrary to the constitution of the
church, and contrary to the Fathers
and the general councils.
But, my dear sir, we will not rest
here. The Fathers are not silent. on
the matter. Many of them wrote COM
mentaries on the Holy Scriptures and
they explain the passages to which
you so often refer CMatt. xvi is, John
xxi I'D and not single one Of them
applies them to the Roman Bishops, as
St. Peters successors.
Further, let us see what the great
Latin doctors of the church have to
say on the text to which you constant
ly come back.
st. Ambrose of Milan (S4o-3sO:
Faith then is the foundation OF the
church. for it was not said OF Peters
person, but Of his faith that the gates of
hell should not prevail against 1t.
De Incarnat. SO, "a.
Peter exercised a primacy, that is
to say, a primacy of confession not OF
dignity; a primacy of faith not OF
rank" De Incarnat. 80.
That no idea of the papacy and ITS
modern claims ever entered his nina
is shown by the fact that he held a
synod at Milan and decided the ques-
ton in regard to Bishop Maximus
against the known opinion of the Pope
st. Augustine (354-430): Thou art,
saith he. Peter and upon this ROCK
which thou hast recognized" saying.
Thou the the Christ, the Son OF the
living Cod I will build My church
Upon Me 1 will build thee, not Me up
on thee"
ST have most frequently explained