The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1907-01-25
BISHOP RESTARICK
TO FATHER BEISSEL

WHsfHke 53 ~ ~ ~ eifejk ejEstksfsje'
To the Rev. James c. Belssei:
Dear Sir: did not intend to appear
again In the discussion which we car
ried on In n friendly way and which
has drifted so far from the original
question. But friends whose opinions
/ value have asked me TO touch upon
the historical side of the matter and
in doing so i 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
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 series or
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,
prominent and intelligent Roman Ca
tholic layman, said to me the other
day. II see that you have had dis
cussion with Father James" yes, L
replied, land / hope that / said nothing
to offend you" NO" he said, ION the
contrary / have been much interested.
and / have looked the matter up and
1 find that have had an incorrect
opinion. / have been taught that the
Church of England was founded by
Henry VIII, but 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, 1t seems
to me that 1t may be analysed as fol-
lows:
Pure assumption ...............5O parts
Argument based on said as
sumption .......4o parts
Residuum capable of treatment. 8 parts
Total loo
OF course it is impossible to answer
assumption and therefore l go to the
resduum and find in 1t the constantly
repeated words of our Lord Thou
art Peter and upon this rock l will
build my church." l 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 statement which you refer to
in your letter to DR.. Bishop as telling"
your opponent, that is myself. In look
ing back / find that these are your
words. There is 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 1t be logical for
historians to conclude 1000 years after
that those persons and things did not
exist?" Ths day this appeared an in
telligent school boy came to me and
said: Father Jamess illustration
comes back to him like a boomerang.
This il 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 a
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" l said, land in the case of
the Pope this is further emphasized by
the fact that the Greek Catholic
Church, with its 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 Matt. 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 (340-39O:
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 it,
De Incarnat. 80, a.
Peter exercised primary, that is
to say, 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 mind
is shown by the fact that he held
synod at Milan and decided the ques-
ton in regard to Bishop Maximus
against the known opinion OF the Pope.
St. Augustine (35i-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 viii build My church.
Upon Me will build thee. not Me up
on thee"
II have most frequently explained
thus what the Lord said: Thou art
Peter, and upon this rock l will build
My church, that should be understood
as upon Him whom Peter had con-
fessed, saying Thou art the Christ
the Son of the living God for 1t was
not said unto him, thou art the rock,
but thou art Peter For Christ was
the Rock whom Simon confessing. as