The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1920-05-29
POPULAR APOLOGET|CS
Adapted from the German of Rev.
Peter Mikes, S. j., by Rev.
James Watcher.
%, The Man in Rome.


calls himself Pope, is the everlasting
stumbIns-bIock for all non-cathoIics:
his arrogance to rule the whole Church
and ensIave all consciences is unbear-
able. Luther writes: 1.-THE Papacy is
founded by the devil" According to
the Standardization Articles the Pope
is "the real Antichrist, who raises him.
self above and against Christ" Hase
Ct 1seo) calls him "the new Goldman
and idol of the Vatican" "a divine
vicar and vice-god," and he speaks of
a devotion to the Pope. (Poemik pp.
1879, 1851 In similar way Tschac-
kert, (Polemik, p. SAY.
Answer: We see that Luther's hatred
towards the Papacy has not yet died
in his followers But we Catholics
will not tolerate to twist and misinter-
pref the words of Christ: Thou art
Peter, Ia rock) and upon this rock |
will build my Church" (Matth. 1919,
and again: Feed my lambs, feed my
sheep" John 21:15-1O. Hence the
whole sheepfold is committed to him.
Hence we see in Peter and his sue
cessor not vice-god, but the visible
representative (vicarius) of the invis-
ible head (ChrisD of the Church.
The Protestant philosopher Schel-
ling & 1854 writes: These words of
Christ (Matth. 1919 are forever deci-
sive for the primary of st. Peter
among the Apostles; it takes all the
blindness of party-spirit to misconstrue
the proof of these words or to give
these words different meaning"
(Philosophie der Offenbarung, 1858. H.
p. 301.)
The radical, liberal Protestant
theologian. Otto Pfeiderer Ct 1909
writes: In spite of all Protestant
efforts to weaken this passage
tMatth. 16: 1S) there can be no doubt
that it contains the solemn proclama-
ton of the primacy of Peter: he is
declared the foundation of the Church,
the bearer of the keys, hence the
steward in the Kingdom of God and
the sovereign lawgiver, whose deter
mination about the lawfulness and I'M
lawfulness has the force of divinely
sanctioned laws" (Urchristentum,
End ed, l. p. $500
The radical biblical critic, Bruno
Bauer & 1892, writes: IF we treat
of the true explanation of the words
(Matth. 1919, then it is not only
mere claim, not a mere fiction, what
the man in Rome is guilty Of but the
correct explanation. The critic, in as
with this man Internationally and he
will pity heartily the worries Of which
the Protestant is guilty who adheres
to the mere letter. The Roman
'Antichrist' has explained correctly
the words that contain Peters
diploma. Let the man of Rome
have his manuscript; eXegetically, as
Protestants though, we will not be
able to destroy it, (Kritik der evan
gelischen Geschichte der Synoptiker,
3 vols, p. g.
According to Prof. Beyschlag
Ct 1900, the great anti-Catholic leader
and theologian, the picture of the key
bearer can hardly be that of a mere
doorkeeper, nor that of the steward
who has only the keys to the store
rooms. But it is rather the office I'M
der the crown mentioned by Isaias
22:22 in the kingdom Of Juda, the
highest officer in the royal household,
of whom it is said: And | will lay
the key of the house of David upon
his shoulder and he shall open, and
none shall shut: and he shall shut
and none shall OPEN" If
there is question of the earthly
existence of the Kingdom of God and
Jesus is considered as it's King, then
Jesus can appoint another to this
Office. He is on the point of leaving
this earth: there is need of a repre-
sentative, of a chief officer of the
crown, as there is in Israel, who con-
tinues in His name to open the King
dom of heaven to men or according to
circumstances to shut it, and thus He
appoints Peter as the key bearer.
Neutestamentliche Theologie, l. p.
1850
Later Beyschlag, terrified at the
Catholic result of his explanation finds
a back door in thinking that after all
Christ had not instituted such an
Office. But we think that if Christ was
wise builder then He could not build
His house on the quicksand of a plur.
ality, but on the unity of one leader
ship and one government.
Of the Protestant explanations Bey
schlag writes: without doubt not all
all the various explanations (of Matth
16ff1S) have been happy. That Jesus
meant by rock on which He wished
to build His Church, not Himself, not
the profession of Peter or the faith
which Peter had just professed, but
the man himself, whom He had given
the name of Rock and to whom He
now gave the assurance of having de
served that name, in the face of the
words Che quotes the Greek text
there can be no quarrel among reason
able men," Il. c.
TO what desperate Explanations
Protestants have taken their refuge is
shown by the following: ''Thou art
Peter (the rock, but not on that rock
but (pointing to Himself) on this one
/ will build my Church." Without
considering the Greek grammar, which
loudly protests against such an ex
PLANTATION, reverence towards Christ
should deter us from such an unworthy
exclamation. which would be worth,