Larger font
Smaller font

General Conference Bulletin, vol. 1

 - Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font

    THE WORD OF GOD - No. 7


    AT the close of our last study we were considering Christ as the head of the church, and I believe that the last line of thought which was presented was that when one member of the body of Christ suffers, all the members suffer. Let us continue the consideration of this general subject, and we will begin with the second part of 1 Corinthians 12:26: “Or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it.”GCB March 1, 1895, page 405.1

    This is all the time on the basis that Jesus Christ is the head of the church, that we are members one of another, and that we are the body and that Christ is the living head. Thus when all the members are united together, and are united with the living head by birth, by that living connection which comes from being born again, it brings honor to all, and all rejoice when one member is exalted, because it is the exaltation of that body as a whole, of which each one is a member. And when that unity prevails and that estimate of each member prevails as God would have it, there cannot possibly be anything else than rejoicing among all the other members when one member is honored in any way.GCB March 1, 1895, page 405.2

    The practical application of this principle would, of course, do away with any possibility of envy or jealousy in the church; it would do away with the possibility of any envy or jealousy in the State conference or in the General Conference. There could not be any feeling when one member is suggested for an important work: “Why, I ought to have had that place. I could do better than he can.” You remember that anecdote of the little girl, who, when the fruit was passing, and the one next to her took the big apple, said: “You selfish thing! I was going to take that myself!” Well, older people are not so honest. They do not say: “You selfish thing; I intended to have had that place myself,” but they say: “I think Brother So-and-so is a pretty good man but,—“GCB March 1, 1895, page 405.3

    Well, when any member is honored in any way, all the other members will rejoice, when Christ is the head of each individual member, and when he is really and truly given his place in the church; and all the instruction that the Lord gives concerning his church is on this basis, — that Christ is the head of the church. When he is there as head of the church, he then gives instruction about the church, and about the authority of the church, and the work of the church, but all the while on the basis that he, himself, is the living head of the church. And it is upon this basis that the Lord has delegated to his church the authority that does belong to the church.GCB March 1, 1895, page 405.4

    It is true with reference to this point, as it is with other points upon which the Roman Catholic Church has widely diverged from the truth, that there is a basis of truth upon which their idea rests. That shows that there was that truth in the church originally; but when you lose sight of this one thought that Jesus Christ is the head of the church, and allow any man to come in his place as head of the church, than it sets everything else awry that would otherwise be in good order. But there is a real truth that there is authority in the church. The church is not simply a social company; it is not simply those who have united on a certain basis that they have agreed upon among themselves. The foundation of the church is wholly divine, and the head of the church is Jesus Christ himself; and on that basis God has delegated authority to the church.GCB March 1, 1895, page 405.5

    But since man has put man in place of God, and put a human head upon the church instead of the divine head, now being shorn of that divine power, and having only human power, the authority of the church is despised; it is looked upon as of little account. “What do we care whether the church censures or not? what do we care whether the church disfellowships or not? We are just as good as they are.” But when Jesus Christ is given his place indeed as head of the church, and the church is built upon the true foundation, and follows closely the instruction given by inspiration concerning the church, there is authority in the church; and on that basis, when one despises the authority of the church, he despises the authority of Jesus Christ; and when Jesus Christ is given his place as head of the church, is recognized by the church itself in the way that he should be, as head of the church, there will be a power in the church, and the church will be something whose membership will be prized and desired, and censure from a church on that basis does mean something - but always on the foundation that Jesus Christ himself, and no other one, is the living head of the church.GCB March 1, 1895, page 405.6

    Now, on this basis, when the church comes together to act in any organized capacity, the first thing is to recognize Jesus Christ as the living head, and the prayer of faith will bring Jesus Christ into the midst of his church, as the divine counsellor; and when decisions are reached by the church on this basis, subject to Jesus Christ, and when Jesus Christ, as head of the church, is present, invited by the prayer of faith, and the guidance of the Spirit is submitted to, — then when decisions are reached by his church on that basis, those decisions are ratified in heaven. And then it means something that the censure of the church rests upon a man; then it means something that a man has been cut off from the church. It means that he has been cut off from the body of Christ; and you can see the foundation of that idea which is openly taught by the Catholic church, — that it being the only true church of Christ, there is no salvation outside of that church, and that when a man is excommunicated, he is cut off from all hopes of salvation. But the trouble in that whole thing is in that one thought, — that a man has been put in the place of Jesus Christ as head of the church.GCB March 1, 1895, page 406.1

    So it is altogether of man, and the decisions reached are altogether of man; and on no such basis as that does the Lord agree to ratify decisions in heaven. But it does not make any difference about the name; you may call it the Roman Catholic Church, you may call it the Methodist Church, or you may call it the Seventh-day Adventist Church; it is only when Jesus Christ has his place as head that its decisions are ratified in heaven, and it is just as easy under some other name to put a human head on the church as under the Roman Catholic name. In his own church, Jesus Christ is the living head, and he should be given the place that belongs to him. Then the affairs of the church will not be treated lightly. Then there will be no spirit of readiness to censure; that is not Jesus Christ’s spirit. There will be no spirit of readiness to cut off somebody from the church; that was not Jesus Christ’s spirit. His instructions all the way through are with reference to retaining members in the church. He tells what efforts to make to keep them; and the instructions are very explicit, and none has the right to say that the decisions of the church will be ratified in heaven when the explicit instructions of the Head of the church have been disregarded.GCB March 1, 1895, page 406.2

    You must have observed that the instruction upon this point is with reference to saving them in the church, not cutting them off. The eighteenth chapter of Matthew (fifteenth verse) tells what to do, and how to do it: “Go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone.” Then if he does not hear, take some one with you; and then if he does not hear, tell it to the church. But unless those steps are followed by the members of the church, how can we expect that Jesus Christ will ratify the decision? So I say again, that when the instructions which Jesus Christ, the head of the church, has given upon this point, have been followed, Jesus Christ recognized as head of the church, his Spirit submitted to as guide, then the actions of the church mean something. And yet, you ask, “Does that make the church infallible?” Never, never! And Jesus Christ his reserved all the time for the guidance of his church the privilege of correcting them, by speaking to them directly, so that when, with the best of intent, and yet through weakness of the flesh, mistakes are committed, he, as head of the church, is ready to correct that mistake. So the spirit of prophecy is not given to make any individual or any church infallible, but it is given to correct the mistakes that the fallible man and the fallible church may make. That is, it does not make any one infallible; but Jesus Christ, the head of the church, is infallible, and when he speaks, what he says is infallibly true; but he makes no human being infallible, not even the instrument through which he speaks. The infallibility is altogether of him and in him.GCB March 1, 1895, page 406.3

    But in making that change, and putting a man as head of the church instead of Jesus Christ, everything that belongs in it is human, and, of course, wrong; and while the form is present, and the same scriptures are applied, it is altogether human, because the head of the whole thing is altogether human, and Jesus Christ has been put aside from the place in which he belongs as head of the church, and humanity has taken his place. Now as we are studying this question of the spirit of prophecy from the stand-point of the infallibility doctrine, it may be well to refer somewhat particularly to what the infallibility doctrine really is, and from what it grows, and so be able more intelligently to see the contrast between true and false infallibility. I will present almost wholly Catholic definitions, so as not to misrepresent in any way.GCB March 1, 1895, page 406.4

    Before the adoption of the definition of infallibility by the Vatican Council in 1870, there were two parties in the Roman Catholic Church. One was called the Liberal party, the other the Old Catholic party. The Old Catholic party was conservative, and inclined to stand by the original principles of the church; the other party was the progressive party, and previous to 1870 it was not universally adopted by the church that the pope was infallible. Previous to that time, the doctrines upon which all were agreed was that when an ecumenical council was called (An ecumenical council is one to which an invitation has been extended to all the bishops in the world. It is not necessary that they should attend, but when the bishops have all been invited, it becomes an ecumenical council, although they may not attend, provided it is presided over either by the pope in person or by his representative.), the decrees of that council were infallible, after having been approved by the pope. But there was quite a good-sized party all the time claiming that the pope was infallible apart from the council, and that he did not need to have what he spoke ex cathedra ratified by the council. There was a division upon that point, and it was not an article of faith.GCB March 1, 1895, page 407.1

    In 1837, in that debate between Archbishop Purcell and Dr. Alexander Campbell, this matter of infallibility was brought up. In his first speech, Archbishop Purcell said:—GCB March 1, 1895, page 407.2

    No enlightened Catholic holds the pope’s infallibility to be an article of faith. I do not; and none of my brethren, that I know of, do.GCB March 1, 1895, page 407.3

    That was in 1837. In the course of the debate, Archbishop Purcell said:—GCB March 1, 1895, page 407.4

    But the Roman Catholic Church has changed, at least in discipline. [That is what Alexander Campbell said.] Grant it. And what of that? Is it not the very nature of discipline that it must be modified by times, places, peculiarities, or nations, and other circumstances, in order to be adapted to the wants of man in all the varieties of his being? Truth is unsusceptible of change. Like God, it is always the same. But the form of the dress of the clergy, the color of the wine to be used at mass, days of fasting and abstinence, and of public meetings for prayer and certain unessential rites in administration of the sacraments, may be changed. The constitution of the church should possess this element of good government. She has the power to make these changes, and she has made them as the wants of her children seemed to require. But the doctrine is invariable. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but, of it, not an iota shall change.GCB March 1, 1895, page 407.5

    Now observe again: “No enlightened Catholic holds the pope’s infallibility to be an article of faith. I do not; and none of my brethren, that I know of, do.” But the time has come when it is necessary to hold that as an article of faith or to be counted as a heretic, and I will read from the “Vatican Council,” by Cardinal Manning, of England, a Catholic:—GCB March 1, 1895, page 407.6

    And, lastly, that though the consent of the Episcopate [that is, the whole body of bishops] of the church be not required, as a condition to the intrinsic value of the infallible definitions of the Roman pontiff, nevertheless it cannot without heresy be said or conceived that the consent of the Episcopate and the Church can ever be absent. For if the pontiff be divinely assisted, both the active and passive infallibility of the Church exclude such a supposition as heretical. To deny such infallible assistance now after the definition, is heresy. And even before the definition, to deny it was proximate to heresy, because it was a revealed truth, and the divine fact, on which the unity of the Church has depended from the beginning. — Pages 118,119.GCB March 1, 1895, page 407.7

    Now Archbishop Purcell says that he does not believe in the infallibility of the pope, and does not know of any Catholic who does. It is not an article of faith; but Manning says that if a man does not now believe, and says he does not believe, he is a heretic, because the church has said that he must believe in the infallibility of the pope apart from the church. So you observe that this doctrine has changed in the church, and now papal infallibility, as defined by the church itself, means that the pope, apart from the Episcopate, entirely distinct from the church, when he speaks ex cathedra concerning faith and morals, is infallible. Then it is important to know what it means to speak concerning faith and morals, and I will quote again from Cardinal Manning in explanation of this phase, that you may see the real scope of the infallibility doctrine:—GCB March 1, 1895, page 407.8

    The phrase, then, “faith and morals,” signifies the whole revelation of faith, the whole way of salvation through faith, or the whole supernatural order, with all that is essential to the sanctification and salvation of man through Jesus Christ. — Page 66.GCB March 1, 1895, page 407.9

    Then he quotes the various church authorities to prove it, and proceeds:—GCB March 1, 1895, page 407.10

    Here we have the single word “faith” put to stand for the whole revealed order of salvation: for morals are contained under faith; and this, which is the ultimate object of infallibility, is expressed in the following and various formulas: (1) Concerning faith; (2) In things of faith and morals; (3) Things which pertain to faith; (4) Things necessary to salvation; (5) Precepts of morals binding the whole church; (6) Things pertaining to piety; (7) Things of religion; (8) Things of faith, speculative and practical; (9) Things pertaining to doctrine; (10) Controversies of religion; (11) Things pertaining to the natural and divine law; (12) Things pertaining to the spiritual health of souls; (13) And to the salvation of the faithful; (14)GCB March 1, 1895, page 407.11

    To the good estate of the Church; (15) The deciding of controversies and the extermination of errors; (16) Things which regard piety and the whole Church; (17) Matters of religion. These might be greatly multiplied. They will, however, suffice to show how wide and general is the simple formula “in faith and morals,” which is the traditionary expression of the object of the infallibility of the Church. It is clear that these phrases are all equivalent. They are more or less explicit, but they contain the same ultimate meaning; namely, that the Church has an infallible guidance in treating of all matters of faith, morals, piety, and the general good of the Church. — Pages 71,72.GCB March 1, 1895, page 408.1

    Speaking in further explanation, he says:—GCB March 1, 1895, page 408.2

    This extends to certain truths of natural science, as, for example, the existence; and to truths of the natural reason, such as that the soul is immaterial, that it is “the form of the body,” and the like. It extends also to certain truths of the supernatural order, which are not revealed; as the authenticity of certain texts or versions of the Holy Scripture. — Page 74.GCB March 1, 1895, page 408.3

    The whole matter is summed up in this statement:GCB March 1, 1895, page 408.4

    I will not here attempt to enumerate the subject-matters which fall within the limits of the infallibility of the Church. It belongs to the Church alone to determine the limits of its own infallibility. — Page 84.GCB March 1, 1895, page 408.5

    But who is it in the church that speaks infallibly? — Why, it is the pope. Then it belongs to the pope himself to define the limits of his own infallibility; and when he defines those limits, he defines them infallibly, and they are not subject to reform or change in any way. Would it be possible any more explicitly and openly to put a man in God’s place than to put him in as head of the church, define that what he speaks ex cathedra on the subject of faith and morals is infallible, and cannot be reformed, and then say that he, himself, is the only one that can of right determine the limits of that infallibility? What is that but putting him in the place of God, — “sitting in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.”GCB March 1, 1895, page 408.6

    But it is perhaps best to ask next, How does the church itself attempt to establish its doctrine of infallibility? It is done this way: If you ask an intelligent Catholic how he knows that the church is infallible, he will tell you, if he follows the teaching of the church, that it is because the Bible says so. You ask him how he knows that the Bible is inspired, and he will say: “Because the church says so.” That is, the Bible proves the infallibility of the church, and if you want to know whether the Bible is inspired or not, that infallible church says so.GCB March 1, 1895, page 408.7

    Now, that would certainly appear to be reasoning around in a circle. But it is not, after all, — to a Catholic, I mean; because the Catholic views the Bible under two aspects: He proves that the Bible is true, just the same as you would establish the authenticity of any document. Whether he can do this or not to your satisfaction, that is not the thought just now, but this is the way he does it: He proceeds by a course of reasoning to establish that the Bible is true. Then from that Bible which is true, he proves that the church is infallible. Then that infallible church turns around and says that that Bible is not only true, but it is inspired. So you have the Bible presented in two aspects: First, simply as true, but not necessarily inspired. The true Bible says that the church is infallible; then the infallible church turns around and says that the Bible is not only true, but it is inspired. Now you ask the Roman Catholic, “How do you know that the Bible is the inspired book?” — “Why, because the infallible church says so.” “How do you know that that church is infallible?” — “Because the true Bible says so.” “How do you know that the Bible is true (not inspired)?” — “Why, I have proved that by a course of reasoning that has established it to my mind.”GCB March 1, 1895, page 408.8

    Do you see that in that way it is not reasoning in a circle strictly? But observe this: The first thing to establish is that the Bible is true. But it is the true Bible resting upon the foundation of reason. Then upon that the Catholics rear the doctrine that the church is infallible; and then all the other doctrines are built upon that. Now here comes some keener reasoner than the one who reasoned out the truth of the Bible, and he sees that the foundation is wholly a rationalistic one; and he reasons away that very foundation, and down goes the true Bible and the infallibility and all the doctrine and everything, because the whole thing rests upon an uncertain foundation. So you see the whole thing does not rest after all upon the infallibility foundation, but it rests upon reason; and when you knock that down, all the rest goes, — everything, infallibility and all.GCB March 1, 1895, page 408.9

    Now what scriptures are appealed to to prove that the true Bible establishes the infallibility of the church? First and always: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” But what is the Catholic rule for the interpretation of the Scriptures? I will read it in the creed of Pope Pius IV. Before reading that, I ought to say this: When the true Bible has established the church to be infallible, and then the infallible church has made that book inspired, which is at the top, the church, or the Bible? — The church, of course. That is, the church is above the inspired Bible, because the church decides that the Bible is inspired; so that necessarily puts the church above the Bible, and makes the whole authority for the inspiration of the Bible to rest upon the church.GCB March 1, 1895, page 408.10

    Now we are prepared to read this creed, and see how these ideas are there stated:—GCB March 1, 1895, page 409.1

    I most steadfastly admit and embrace the Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the same Church. I also admit the Holy Scriptures. [You see, “I also admit the Holy Scriptures.” But how does he admit the Holy Scriptures? — “I also admit the Holy Scriptures”], according to that sense which our holy Mother the Church has held, and does hold, to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures. — Catholic Belief, p.251.GCB March 1, 1895, page 409.2

    The Mother church and her interpretation are to determine the matter, and therefore it is by the unanimous consent of the Fathers that this interpretation of the Scriptures must be established. Then let us see where this infallibility doctrine is, on that basis. In the “Vatican Council,” by L. W. Bacon, I find this from the speech of Archbishop Kenrick, of St. Louis, which was prepared to be delivered before the Vatican Council when this infallibility question was under consideration. This speech was not delivered, and he could not get it printed in the city of Rome; so he went over to Naples, and had it printed and circulated it among the bishops, and some of the copies got out, and this is a translation of the speech:—GCB March 1, 1895, page 409.3

    The primacy of the Roman Pontiff, both in honor and in jurisdiction, in the universal church, I acknowledge. Primacy, I say, not lordship. But that the primacy is vested in him as the successor of Peter, all the tradition of the church testifies, from the beginning. And on the sole strength of this testimony I accept it as an absolutely certain principle and dogma of faith. But that it can be proved from the words of Holy Scriptures, by any one who would be faithful to the rule of interpretation prescribed to us in that profession of faith which we have uttered at the opening of this Council, and so often on other occasions, I deny. — Page 106.GCB March 1, 1895, page 409.4

    And the profession of faith which was uttered at the opening of the council was made in a foot-note as follows:—GCB March 1, 1895, page 409.5

    I will never take nor interpret the Holy Scriptures, except in accordance with the unanimous consent of the Fathers.GCB March 1, 1895, page 409.6

    Then he goes on:—GCB March 1, 1895, page 409.7

    Accepting this rule, we are compelled to abandon the usual modern exposition of the words, “On this rock I will build my church.” In a remarkable pamphlet, “printed in fac-simile of manuscript,” and presented to the fathers almost two months ago, we find five different interpretations of the word “rock,” in the place cited, “the first of which declares (I transcribe the words) “that the church was built on Peter; and this interpretation is followed by seventeen fathers.” [Then he names them.]GCB March 1, 1895, page 409.8

    The second interpretation understands from these words “on this rock will I build my church,” that the church was built on all the apostles, whom Peter represented by virtue of the primacy. And this opinion is followed by eight fathers - among them, Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, and Theodoret.GCB March 1, 1895, page 409.9

    The third interpretation asserts that the words “on this rock,” etc., are to be understood of the faith which Peter had professed; that this faith, this profession of faith, by which we believe Christ to be the Son of the living God, is the everlasting and immovable foundation of the church. This interpretation is the weightiest of all, since it is followed by forty-four fathers and doctors; among them, from the East are Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Theophylact; from the West, Hilary, Ambrose, Leo the Great; from Africa, Augustine.GCB March 1, 1895, page 409.10

    The fourth interpretation declares that the words “on this rock,” etc., are to be understood of that rock which Peter had confessed, that of Christ - that the church was built upon Christ. This interpretation is followed by sixteen fathers and doctors.GCB March 1, 1895, page 409.11

    The fifth interpretation of the Fathers understands, by the name of “the rock,” the faithful themselves, who, believing Christ to be the Son of God, are constituted living stones out of which the church is built.GCB March 1, 1895, page 409.12

    Thus far the author of the pamphlet aforesaid, in which may be read the words of the Fathers and doctors whom he cites.GCB March 1, 1895, page 409.13

    From this it follows either that no argument at all, or one of the slenderest probability, is to be derived from the words, “On this rock will I build my church,” in support of the primacy. Unless it is certain that by the rock is to be understood the apostle Peter in his own person, and not in his capacity as the chief apostle speaking for them all, the word supplies no argument whatever, I do not say in proof of papal infallibility, but even in support of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. — Pages 107-109.GCB March 1, 1895, page 409.14

    You remember that this is a Roman Catholic archbishop that is speaking. Now he suggests an interpretation for that text, “On this Rock,” etc., and he says:—GCB March 1, 1895, page 409.15

    And the adversaries of the faith are disarmed of the weapon which they have so effectively wielded against us, when they say that the Catholics believe the church to be built, not on Christ, but on a mortal man; and (a matter of no small account in the present discussion) the underpinning is taken out from the argument which the advocates of the infallibility of the pope himself alone are wont to derive from a figurative expression of doubtful meaning, — riding the metaphor to death, — to prove that he received from Christ an authority not only supreme, but absolute. Page 113.GCB March 1, 1895, page 409.16

    I admit, indeed, that a great privilege was granted to Peter above the rest; but I am led to this conviction by the testimony, not of the Scriptures, but of all Christian antiquity. — Page 120.GCB March 1, 1895, page 409.17

    It appears, then, from the argument of Archbishop Kenrick that the very principle of interpretation laid down by the Catholic Church does not allow the infallibility of the pope to be deduced from this text, because the Fathers were all divided on it; and you cannot take any interpretation, and have the unanimous consent of the Fathers. Of course Archbishop Purcell in his debate rings all the changes on that text, “On this rock.” Of course, Catholics believe that that has reference to Peter as being the foundation of the church, but you observe that the rule of interpretation laid down by the Catholic Church itself, as Archbishop Kenrick says, forbids such an application of the text.GCB March 1, 1895, page 409.18

    I will call your attention to the way in which Archbishop Purcell treats the Lord’s words to Peter, “Feed my lambs,” “Feed my sheep,” and Dr. Campbell’s reply. The Archbishop having claimed that by “lambs” the lay members were intended, but that the “sheep” were the clergy, and that therefore our Lord gave to Peter, and through him to his successors, authority over both the lay members and the clergy, Dr. Campbell simply read that interpretation into the tenth chapter of John, as follows:—GCB March 1, 1895, page 410.1

    Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the “clergy.” To him the porter openeth; and the “clergy” hear his voice: and he calleth his own “clergy” by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own “clergy,” he goeth before them, and the “clergy” follow him; for they know his voice.GCB March 1, 1895, page 410.2

    This is a sufficient reply, but Archbishop Kenrick puts it in another way:—GCB March 1, 1895, page 410.3

    In the little work De Pontificia Infallibilitate, almost of the same tenor as the Observations aforesaid, which I have printed lately at Naples. [He had to get it printed at Naples; he could not get it printed in Rome]GCB March 1, 1895, page 410.4

    By a typographical error the word PROBATA occurs instead of PROBATIA, as it was in my manuscript, and as it appears in the Synopsis. But, after all, it is a fact that in the Greek text of Hahn the same word PROBATA does correspond to both the words, lambs and sheep, in the place cited. But the only difference produced by the variation of reading is this: In Tischendorf’s text there is nothing whatever to correspond to the word “sheep;” for PROBATIA means either “little lambs” or “little sheep,” but not “sheep” at all. But in the other text of Hahn, the word PROBATA signifies “sheep;” notwithstanding which the author of the Vulgate version chose to make a variation, by rendering the same word PROBATA in one case by “lambs,” and in the other by “sheep.” — The Vatican Council, page 98.GCB March 1, 1895, page 410.5

    And then the argument is that the lambs mean the laity, and the sheep the clergy, and so the pope has control of all, as the successor of Peter. Now notice the comment of the translator:—GCB March 1, 1895, page 410.6

    There is a decree of the Council of Trent in these terms:... “The sacred and holy Synod... doth obtain and declare that the said old and Vulgate edition... be, in public lectures, disputations, preachings, and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare or presume to reject it under any pretext whatsoever.” How Archbishop Kenrick justifies himself in rejecting the Vulgate version of this text, in favor of the true reading and correct translation, we are not prepared to say; but it is probably on the ground that this was not intended as a public exposition, but a private and confidential communication to his fellow-bishops.GCB March 1, 1895, page 410.7

    I have called attention to some of these points, and may refer to others further to show that it is not all clear sailing even in the Catholic Church on the infallibility question; that even in the church itself it meets some little difficulty, and those statements are just as true to-day as they were before July 18, 1870, when the council declared the pope to be infallible.GCB March 1, 1895, page 410.8

    Larger font
    Smaller font