Radio Replies Second Volume - The Pope

Celledoor.com ^ | 1940 | Fathers Rumble & Carty

[GonzoII]

The Pope

297. As a Protestant I question your statements that it is necessary to have a Pope.

You are not alone in doing so. In fact, if you did not do so, you would not still profess to be a Protestant.

298. Why do we need one?

Because we need the Church Christ thought fit to establish, with just the very constitution He gave it. And since He arranged that we should have a Pope, we need a Pope.

299. Is not Jesus Christ enough?

One does not accept Jesus Christ who refuses to accept the provision made by Jesus Christ for the guidance of His followers through the ages.

300. How did the early Church progress without a Pope?

The Church was never without a Pope. From its very foundation St. Peter had been appointed Pope by Christ Himself when He uttered the words: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church . . . and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Mt 16:18-19.

301. In the Acts of the Apostles we read that "they added unto the Church daily such as should be saved." Acts 16:5.

Converts to Christ, therefore, submitted to the Church Christ had established. And that Church included its constitution under the primacy of St. Peter. All accepted that.

302. See the manner of government in the early Church. In Acts 8:29, we are told that "the Spirit said unto Philip." The Holy Spirit was ruling the Church.

The Holy Spirit is given to the Church, and works in and through the Church, sometimes immediately, as in the case of Philip, sometimes through the channels of visible authorities, as when the Apostles declared of their legislation, "It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us." Acts 15:28. Never once, of course, could the Holy Spirit inspire any man to act against the lawful authority of the Church, which is the primary object of the Holy Spirit's guidance and influence. The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself.

303. Why should it be different today?

It is not different today. That is why Catholics accept the same conditions as those which prevailed in the early Church.

304. Is man's moral character so far below the standard of the Apostles that he now needs the Spirit governing second-hand?

I hope you do not imagine that you are on the level of the Apostles! Had you lived in those days, and had you then been a Christian, you would have been as subject to the Apostles in matters of faith and conduct as we Catholics are subject to our Bishops. And when they gave the law, saying, "It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us," you would not have refused obedience on the plea that you would not be governed second-hand even by the Holy Spirit.

305. If Christ gave the Holy Spirit care of the Church, then the Holy Spirit still works in that capacity.

Correct. But you suggest that, although the Holy Spirit was given care of the Church, He allowed the whole Church, Pope, Bishops, and all, to drift to error and deception until the Protestant reformers came along to put it right. If you say that He inspired the Protestant reformers, it is strange that He inspired them with so many different and conflicting ideas! The Holy Spirit knows His own mind. And because she is subject to the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church knows her own mind. Elsewhere there is chaos.

306. Would you suggest that St. Paul needed a Pope?

Yes; for he needed just that Church which Christ had established; and since that Church was entrusted to the care of a supreme head on earth, St. Paul needed a Pope.

307. He wrote to Timothy that there is one mediator between God and man — Christ Jesus.

That is Catholic doctrine, but it does not obviate the necessity of a Pope. Because Christ is the one Mediator, we have to accept whatever method He appoints for the exercise of His mediation. He chose to dispense the benefits of His mediation through the Church He organized, and He decided that the Pope should be in supreme control of the Church in this world.

308. Paul could go straight to God through Christ Jesus.

Of course he could. So can any Catholic. But we do this by accepting the teachings of the Catholic Church and fulfilling her precepts. That is why our Lord said of His Church, "He who hears you, hears Me." Lk 10:16. If you think that no agents were ever appointed by Christ to dispense grace to men in His name, the very St. Paul you quote is against you. "Let a man account of us," he wrote to the Corinthians, "as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God." 1 Cor 4:1. Would you reply to him, "I acknowledge no dispenser of any mysteries of God save Christ alone? I go straight to Him, not to you. You can dispense nothing to me — there is one Mediator — Christ Jesus." St. Paul would say to you, "My dear child, I wrote those words, and I ought to know what they mean. They do not exclude His use of us as dispensers of His mediation to mankind. Our power and authority are His power and authority committed to us; and if you want to obey Him, you will account of us as dispensers in His name, and submit to His provision for you." As a matter of fact, St. Paul demanded absolute obedience to his commands. He forgave the sin of the incestuous Corinthian after his repentance, saying, "If I have pardoned anything, I have done it in the person of Christ." 2 Cor 2:10. Your notion that the supreme mediation of Christ excludes secondary mediators acting in the name of Christ is quite opposed to St. Paul's own teachings.

309. Do not Catholics believe that the Pope is the living Christ?

No. Every Catholic professes in the Apostles' Creed that Christ rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, and that there He is at "the right hand of God the Father Almighty." No Catholic believes that Christ dwells in the Vatican, clad in the robes of the Pope. We do believe that Christ has delegated His authority to the Pope as supreme visible head of the visible Church in this world, but the Pope is certainly not the living Christ in person.

310. Pope Pius X made the blasphemous claim that he was "Jesus Christ hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks."

A Protestant paper, the "Church Review," in England, Oct. 3, 1895, charged Cardinal Sarto, Archbishop of Venice, with having uttered those words at Venice. Cardinal Sarto was elected Pope in 1903. But as soon as the charge was made in 1895 that Cardinal Sarto had said those words, inquiries were sent from England to Venice, and Cardinal Sarto produced the manuscript of his discourse. And this is what he actually did say: "The Pope represents Jesus Christ Himself, and therefore is a loving father. The life of the Pope is a holocaust of love for the human family. His word is love; love, his weapon; love, the answer he gives to all who hate him; love, his flag, i.e., the Cross, which signed the greatest triumph on earth and in heaven."

311. Pope Nicholas I. said that the Pope, being God, is judged by no man.

Never did Pope Nicholas I. say that the Pope is God. What he does say is this: "Since those in higher authority are not judged by inferiors, it is evident that the Apostolic See, than which no earthly authority is higher, is judged by none." And that is perfectly sound reasoning. Even in civil law, the king is "above the law," and not subject to his own laws. Hence the legal axiom, "The king can do no wrong." Italy itself has acknowledged, the justice of the Pope's claim to be independent of all civil jurisdiction, and subject to no earthly authorities.

312. In the "Extravagantes" of Pope John XXII, Roman Canon Law says that it is heresy to deny the power of "Our Lord God the Pope."

That remark is attributed, not to Pope John XXII, but to the Canonist Zenzelinus, in his commentary on Title XIV of the "Extravagantes." But an examination of the original manuscript of Zenzelinus, preserved in the Vatican Library, failed to reveal the words attributed to him; and it has been definitely proved that the reference to God is an interpolation in later copies of his commentary.

313. You say that the Pope is the lawful successor of St. Peter.

That is true.

314. Do you maintain that St. Peter was the first Pope of Rome?

Yes. The word "Pope" simply means "Father," and it is certain that Christ appointed Peter to be the head or spiritual father of the whole Christian family. Also it is certain that he died in Rome.

315. According to your doctrine Peter was appointed Vicar of Christ before he became Bishop of Rome. Why must his successors first become Bishops of Rome before they become Vicars of Christ?

They become simultaneously Vicars of Christ by becoming Bishops of Rome. Christ conferred the Primacy upon St. Peter in such a way that it would continue in his successors. His successors are those who succeed to the episcopal office he held at the time of his death. Now St. Peter presided over the Church at Rome, and died in that city. Therefore the Bishop of Rome succeeds simultaneously to the Episcopal See and the Primacy.

Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/

[annalex]

Based on the display of logic in your post, I doubt anything is “clear to you”.

[dila813]

It’s clear to me, the Church has declared it a sin not to steal.

[annalex]

It didn’t.