hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to (juxta) the unanimous consent of the Fathers." 1

Now it is quite plain that there is no unanimous consent of the Fathers in the interpretation of the Petrine text. We read, therefore, in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Vatican Council:

66

That is to be held the true sense of Holy Scripture which Holy Mother Church hath held and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of Holy Scripture, and therefore it is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture contrary to this sense, nor likewise contrary (Contra) to the unanimous consent of the Fathers." 2

This is quite harmless, and we are certainly not violating it when we deny the claims of the papacy a Scriptural foundation.

Not only is it true that the Roman Catholic assertion that the Papalist interpretation of the Petrine texts is that of the Fathers is unfounded; but it is also true that the passages quoted from

1" The Profession of Faith Prescribed by Pius IV." (Denzinger, p. 234.)

2" The Dogmatic Constitution of the Vatican." (Denzinger, p. 288.)

the Fathers to show that they recognized the papacy as an existing fact do not prove what they are quoted to prove. It is perfectly true that in very early times the see of Rome was regarded as the see of Peter. Its early history was associated with the great names of Peter and Paul. Moreover, it was the bishopric of the world's capital. It was the one Apostolic see in the West. It was altogether natural that it should be held in special reverence, especially in the West. This reverence finds expression from time to time in the writings of the Fathers. But what in their writings is at most the expression of a feeling of Rome's supremacy in dignity is quoted by the modern Roman controversialist as though it applied to all that is claimed for the papacy by the Vatican Council as though the claims of Pius IX were in the minds of the Fathers. It is a clever enough trick, but it is only a trick. There are no utterances of the Fathers which at all imply a knowledge on their part of any claim of the Pope to possess Jure divino jurisdiction over the whole Church. It is well to be clear about this. The passages quoted from early Christian writers in support of the papal theory may equally well or better be understood otherwise. If you come to them with the papal theory in your mind as an established fact, you

can make them fit; but no one would build up a papal theory out of them. For centuries the Church with these passages before it did not give them a papal interpretation.

The explicit nature of the papal claim that the Vatican doctrine is the "venerable and constant belief of every age" of the Church excludes the possibility of development. The theory of development is a very attractive one. You can account for whatever exists by it. By it, it would have been fairly easy to account for the papacy. But the papacy no doubt saw wisely when it rejected it, for it not only explains but it desupernaturalizes. A papacy developed in the Middle Ages or in the post-Reformation period might claim a certain ecclesiastical sanction, but it could hardly claim divine right. If the Church had got on for centuries without it, it could not claim to be of the esse of the Church. It is essential to the papal theory that all the papal powers should have existed from the beginning. But this, as we

A

have seen, is more than difficult to prove. certain class of Roman Catholic scholars see this and feel the difficulty of the Roman position. They therefore in the face of their own authoritative documents attempt to account for the growth of the papacy on the theory of development.

"What we find in the primitive Church is a church that is primitive, that is to say, a germ endowed with a tendency toward what we now see; a germ defined in itself and possessed of its own character and of a beginning of organization, in such sort that the present order would necessarily flow from it through the co-operation of circumstances which would be to the germ what the earth and the atmosphere are to the plant. Now, what is it in the embryonic Church that represents the central authority in which we to-day see the bond of our Church? It is the primacy of Simon Peter." 1

No more does Tixeront find the papacy of the Vatican decrees in the primitive Church.

"It is impossible, do what one will, to efface the sense of these declarations [of S. Cyprian] and to believe that he who made them had a clear and complete idea of the pontifical primacy." 2

"To the bishop of Rome texts and facts manifestly attribute or suppose an undisputed consideration and a special authority of which the nature and extent are as yet not entirely determined.” 3

This sums up the Ante-Nicene period. further, on the same period, Tixeront says:

1 Sertillanges, “L'Eglise,” vol. I, p. 154. 2" Hist. des Dogmes,” I, p. 427.

8 Ibid., p. 514.

And

"This résumé of the state of theological teaching on the eve of Arianism shows us the Church fixed on the bases of its belief, and, on the whole, ready to define it in broad lines when need shall arise. The organ of these definitions will be its hierarchy, and it is because the prerogatives of this hierarchy are recognized that the Church will be able to impose its decisions and dissipate the attacks of which they will be the object. Unfortunately this hierarchy will find itself divided, and personal rivalries as much as doctrinal divergences will prolong beyond measure the debates that a sincere discussion would have closed in a few hours. But at least these debates, by their very extent, will be the occasion of a more complete clearing up of the evangelistical revelation and of a more sensible progress of the Christian society in the understanding of its faith." 1

This would seem to have been a good place for the living voice to come in!

"The holy doctor (S. Augustine) admits that in his judgment an appeal may be allowed to the see of Rome. But does he grant the Pope a doctrinal authority which is infallible and sovereign? That is a question to which it is impossible to give a firm answer. The passages which are invoked to deny it are in no ways certain. Those which are alleged in its support are no more so. It is a question, not 1 Ibid., p. 516.