CATHOLICITY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12260, 2 May 1903, Page 5 (Supplement)

CATHOLICITY.

A REPLY TO THE REV. H. KELLY.

[BY R.B.F.]

! Considerable discussion has of late taken. 1 place in the columns of the Herald, which, as Mr. Kelly observes in his essay on the subject, indicates that no little misconception exists regarding the meaning of the term Catholic. Yet Mr. Kelly himself, learned theologian as he may be, has given expression to opinions equally at variance with the true meaning of the word Catholic. The rev. gentleman affirms that one member of the Anglican community declares himself a Protestant; another prefers to call himself a Catholic, and vigorously repudiates the epithet of Protestant; while a third, remarks this clerical casuist, with reason and history on his side, proclaims himself both a Catholic and Protestant. Now, with all due respect for the opinions which Mr. Kelly entertains on this subject, I may be permitted to remark that whatever prejudiced history may have to say in favour of the claims of Protestant Churches to the title of Catholic, reason and common sense are opposed thereto.

I should very much like to know how Mr. Kelly can reconcile such conflicting opinions with reason and ecclesiastical history from the earliest, ages of the Roman . Catholic Church. If I chose to go into this question fully I could bring forward plenty of authentic authority to prove that the claims entertained by Protestants designating their religious forms of worship is a claim not warranted by the facts of reason, history, or truth. The term Catholic is one of the fundamental points of faith by which the visible Church of Christ on earth is designated. That visible Church is known, as it was in the beginning of the second century, as far as my researches have gone. The Church was designated the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church as this visible Church upon earth. Reason and history are not nor cannot be in accord in proclaiming Protestantism at once both Catholic and Protestant. The statement of Mr. Kelly is an utter absurdity on the very face of it. Next, our clerical essayist proceeds to prove to his own satisfaction that the term Catholic was not in use until very much later than the Apostolic times. At the same time he informs us that- the word Catholic is found in the superscription of certain epistles to indicate that they were addressed not to any particular Church, but to the general or universal Christian community. Now, the Churches to which those epistles were addressed were churches having parts in communion with each other, and well organised ; not split up into fragments like Protestant Churches of the present day, but forming one whole, one body of Christians, one universal empire in spirituals—a Church which had its members not only in one or two countries, but in any and every part of the world, wherever Christianity had got a foothold. 1 may here remark that as the Protestant faith was at the time unknown the claim to Catholicity becomes nugatory. Catholicity, then, in the -strictest acceptation of the term, means a universal Christian community, a visible Church under one head, spreading its jurisdiction throughout all nations; not territorial, not national, not of one continent, not limited to a portion of earth, but a Church united in faith, worship, and government. Will the Rev. Mr. Kelly affirm that Protestantism comes under this definition of Catholicity"; It would be useless for him to say it does. Uniformity of faith, worship, and government does not exist in Protestantism, as it is divided into so many sects or creeds that it is difficult to tell where it will end.

Apart from the Roman Catholic Church there is not a church in existence that can with any degree of truth lay claim to the title of Catholic. We can trace with unerring hand the inventors or founders of the different religious sects which have, sprung up since the Reformation, but. the founder of the Roman Catholic Church is traceable to Christ and his apostles. Our reverend casuist, in seeking to nuke out his case, speaks sneeringly in his attempts to denominate three different phases of Catholicity. In the second century he says a Catholic meant one who loved and worshipped Christ. Just so. But it may be remarked that the Roman Catholic Church is here distinctly designated by Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, as Mr. Kelly would know full well if he had only taken the trouble to give the full text of the sermon in place of an isolated portion that seemed to suit his own side of the question. Protestantism not being mentioned or thought of, their claims to Catholicity rest on a spurious foundation. Second, in the fourth century, one who believed in the Nicene Creed. Mr. Kelly has shown conclusively that he is a sceptic on this head. His claim .to Catholicity ,- s therefore absurd. And lastly, in the ninth century one who agreed with the Church of Rome. Now, Protestantism was not a creed or church in the ninth century, and it is absurd to claim to agree with the Church of Rome. But as Mr. Kelly does not himself agree with either the Church of Rome or even the Church of England his claim to Catholicity is equally abortive. But what does the Rev. 11. Kelly really believe? As far as my observation* goes 1 find the rev. gentleman to centre his belief in Knoxism, Calvinism, Kelly-ism, and Orangeism, the two last predominating over the two former. It is usual for our opponents at this time every year to quote from certain texts of Scripture isolated portions by which they vainly attempt to prove their own Church right and the Roman Catholic Church wrong. Mr. Kelly's quotation from Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, is a case in point, but unfortunately not an isolated one. By so doing the pith of the argument is left in obscurity. I need not give the text in question, as I originally intended to do, seeing that a correspondent in an issue of last week's Herald has already done so, which puts a different complexion on the meaning to that -which the Rev. Kelly seeks to convey for the benefit of Protestantism and the exclusion of true Catholicity. Protestants, however, whatever may be their differences in other respects, seem to be united together in one bond of union in their common enmity to the Catholic superstition, as they affect to call it. But as that is merely a union of negation in which the devil himself might consistently join, we can afford to let them rave and 'rant to their heart's content. But as the cause of truth can never be advanced by the headlong recklessness of vituperation or twelfth of July phillipics and harangues delivered from the platform of Orange conventicles by ministers professing to teach the Gospel of Christ, so also do I fail to see how Mr. Kelly can prove his cause to be just and truthful by an appeal to the insane passions engendered by religious bigotry. Quod übique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est is no delusion as regards the Roman Catholic Church, but it would be a delusion and a misnomer to apply the same phrase to any form of Protestantism as we see it in this twentieth century.