The Irish standard., 1909-03-27
ST. PATRICK NO PROTESTANT.

ST. PATRICK NO PROTESTANT.
An esteemed correspondent sends a
dipping from the Sioux City Journal
OF March % containing a synopsis of
u discourse by Rev. L. II. Stevens, a
baptist clergyman of that city, in
which he declared that ST. Patrick was
not a Catholic nor in communion with
the See of Rome. Brother Stevens"
says our correspondent, fought to he
combcd 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. Pat
rick and has said nothing offensive
to Catholics. Consequently. instead
of "combipg him a little" we shall try
to show that the reverend gentleman
is egrcgiously mistaken in his views
when he asserts that ST. Patrick was
just as much a Baptist or a Presby-
t rian as a Catholic" The facts Of his
rc:y arc against such an assumption.
If Rev. Stevens examines the doctrine
of the Catholic Church rs taught by
it with the doctrine as ta,EH :
in the twentieth century he will find
no difference whatever. The doctrine
preached by st. Patrick before King
Laogare and his nobility at Tara. near
ly 1900 years ago, is identicaly the
Same as that taught by Bishop Gar
rlgar of his own city today. The Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass was celebrated
men as now, and the seven Sacramento
II the Church We're administered as
NOW by st. Patrick and his dis :ipleS.
There is no valid foundation for say
ing that st. Patrick preached a doctrine
different from that of Rome, which sent
MIN. Protestant preachers, like Rcv.
Stevens, who ridiculously claim that
st. Patrick was a Protestant, have no
authority for what they say. If they
have, let them produce it. The people
20 whom st. Patrick preached the gos-
pei of Christ have retained the same
faith from generation to generation
without any variation in creed or cere-
monial and they are today among the
most ardent udherents 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 ac-
oused them of error. There was a
difference about the time of celebrating
Easter, 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. well established historical
fact. Where is there any proof to th.
contrary? No Baptist or Preshyttr.an
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
Dot, sioI- mt Tath hal To
what was he?
The Baptists and Presbyterians Of
today do not believe in the doctrines
he taught. They do not celebrate his
What difference does it
make to them If he was 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 irti-
mates, why does he not furnish any
proof of his statement? Anything blu!
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 a New York
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.