The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1909-03-27
ST. PATRICK NO PROTESTANT.


ST. PATRICK NO PROTESTANT.
An esteemed correspondent sends a
dipping from the Sioux City Journal
OF March 20 containing a synopsis Of
Il discourse by Rev. T.. II. Stevens, a
baptist clergyman of that city, in
which he declared that ST. Patrick was
not ii Catholic nor in communion with
the See of Rome. Brother Stevens"
says our correspondent. Fought to be
combed a little for his utterances" Rev.
Stew, MS is not the first Protestant
clergyman, nor will he be the last to
deny that the Apostle to the Irish was
sent by the Pope Of Rome. but rather
that he was "a free Christian" whose
call came mot from Rome, but from
Christ"
The Irish Standard perceives that
Rev. Stevens is an adlnirer of st. Fat
rick and has said nothing offensive
to Catholics. Consequently. instead
of "combipg him little" we shall try
to show that the reverend gentleman
is egregiously mistaken in his views
when he asserts that st. Patrick was
just as much Baptist or Presby
terrain as a Catholic" The facts Of his
tc:y are against such an assumption.
If Rev. Stevens examines the doctrine
Of the Catholic Church as taught by
ST. Patrick in the fifth century and
compares it with the doctrine as tauch
in the twentieth century he will End
no difference whatever. The doctrine
preached by st. Patrick before King
l.aogare and his nobility at Tara. near
Iy 1900 years ago. is identcally the
Same as that taught by Bishop Gar
rlgar of his own city today. The Holy
Sacrifice OF the Mass was celebrated
tncn as now, and the seven Sacramento
IL the Church were administered as
now by st. Patrick and his dis :iples.
There is no valid foundation for say
ing that st. Patrick preached doctrine
different from that Of Rome, which sent
nim. Protestant preachers, like Rev.
Stevens, who ridiculously claim that
st. Patrick was a. Protestant, have no
authority for what they say. If they
nave, let them produce it. The people
20 whom st. Patrick preached the Cos
pei of Christ have retained the same
faith from generation to generation
without any variation in creed or cere-
n1onial. and they are today among the
most ardent adherents and supporters
Of the Holy See. The early Irish mis-
sionaries preached the same faith in
all parts Of Europe. and there is no
record that the Pope of Rome ever &C.
oused them Of error. There was n
difference about the time Of celebrating
Faster, as Rev. Stevens says. but that
matter was afterward adjusted to the
satisfaction of all concerned. That
st. Patrick received his commission
from Rome and was subject to tho
Pope Is a we'll established historical
fact. Where is there any proof to th-
contrary? No Baptist or Presbyterian
had appeared in the world for thou
sand years and more after the time Of
st. Patrick. If they were in existence
history is silent on the subject. Then
il st. Patrick was not Catholic. pray
what was he?
The Baptists and Presbyterians Of
today do not believe in the doctrines
he taught They do not celebrate his
anniversary. What difference does it
make to them IL he was a Catholic and
received his commission from Pope
Celestine? Why are they so anxious
to steal from the old church one Of
the greatest saints in her calendar
the one next to st. Paul who has done
tine most good for humanity, according
to Cardinal Manning?
If the Irish church is of Eastern
origin. as this Baptist minister init
mates, why does he not furnish any
proof Of his statement? Anything bu.
Rome for this reverend gentleman, who
evidently is afflicted with rabies 3o-
mana" Rev. Stevens says that st.
Patrick is deserving Of much credit
and that he has no quarrel with him.
We have no quarrel with Rev. Stevens,
but think he does not deserve much
credit for his nonsensical utterances.
He does not go so far as New York
preacher OF his denomination who
claims out and out that the apostle Of
Ireland was Baptist. Perhaps the
reason for such a claim is that the
Baptists have no saint Of their own.
. VI