'STAND FAST IN THE FAITH '

New Zealand Tablet, 23 October 1913, Page 3

'STAND FAST IN THE FAITH '

(A Weekly Instruction specially written for the N.Z. / ' Tablet by 'Ghimel'.) THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER t .ITS DOCTRINAL BEARINGS St. Peter's Roman Episcopate was considered in A previous article. Viewed simply as an event of past history, it is a matter for historical investigation; and ample evidence was brought from ancient Christian literature and monuments to prove that the head of the Apostles lived and died in Rome, and was Bishop there. Catholic tradition on this point was traced to 'within thirty years or so of the saint's death—nay, the catacombs bear witness of his actual presence in Rome. This point of history is, however, chiefly important in its theological aspect, in its bearing on the. truth of Revelation, that our Lord set up for all time in His .'Church. a Primacy. If Peter was the first Primate (or Head) of the Church, and if Christ intended that this Primacy should continue in His Church after Peter's death, continue, in fact, to the end of time, 'it is at once clear that the Bishops of Rome alone are the de. facto rightful inheritors of that prerogative, and that their title of succession to Peter therein is of Divine origin and institution.' The historical fact of St. Peter's Roman Episcopate, taken in connection with the Roman Pontiff's succession to his Primacy, is the never-failing and patent proof of the promise: ' Thou art Peter (the rock), and upon this rock will I build my Church ' (St. Matthew xvi., 18-19). " >; Of course it was not absolutely necessary that St. Peter should have become' Bishop of Rome in, preference to any other city God could have easily arranged that Peter's prerogatives as Head of the Church should pass in some other way to the line of Roman Pontiffs. But since Peter did become Bishop of Rome, we must see in that fact an indication that Divine Providence wished the Primacy to be bound up for ever with the See of Rome. The position of the Eternal City in ancient times pointed it out as the natural place for "the centre of the Church's life and government, but surely we may see in all that the finger of God. This is what gives such immense importance to the 'fact of St. Peter's going to Rome, not a simple traveller but as endowed with apostolic authority, and of his residence there. 'ln treating of this question,' writes Fr. Livius, ' we have to deal, not with some still-born and lifeless occurrence without results, which is no more heard of, but with a complex living fact, informed with moral principle and vitality, that enters into the order of thought and of theological truth, and into the domain of practical conduct, religion, and politics. It purports to have its original source in Divine revelation, to be the result and realisation of an express promise of Christ through Peter to His Church, or, rather, to be the divinely-appointed mode whereby that promise, which affects the essential constitution of the Church, is carried into actual effect. 'lts energy as a living moral effect is manifest,' in all time since its first origin, both from the results of its own active operation, and from the'constantly prevalent t belief of Christendom, both as to its material occurrence and its formal character. .It is ever big with great consequences, momentous to the doctrine, religion, and discipline of the Church, ,as well as to the political principles, and action of the entire Christian society. Throughout successive ages it. has held its place in the minds and hearts of millions of the faithful, —as,still with all Catholics of the present day,—not as though it were simply some isolated, material event of past history that happened on a time once for all, but as an everpresent principle, influential for religious belief and practice' (St. Peter, Bishop of Rome, p. xi.). ;„ That our Lord intended the Primacy which He conferred in the first instance upon Peter ! to remain in His Church forever, and that consequently He wished Peter's successors to possess it, is a truth of faith.

The Vatican Council (Sess. iv., chap. 2) N . declares :' 'Surely no one doubts, c what is well known, forsooth,; in all ages, that the holy 'and; most:blessed Peter, the prince and head of the Apostles, the pillar of faith, and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the Kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind : and that even to the present time he ever lives, presides, and exercises judgment in his successors, the Bishops of the Holy Roman See, founded by himself and consecrated "with his blood.' • . - ' ~- It is a matter of vulgar historical knowledge that the Bishops of Rome have at all times claimed, and exercised, apostolic authority lover all other Bishops; that the See of Rome has always been looked upon as the centre of Christendom; that no such claim has ever been advanced on behalf of any .other See or 'Bishop. So that it is ' Vex*rus ant nullus—Papa out nullus' (' Peter or no one —The Pope or no one') if the Bishop of Rome is not Head of the Church, and if his See is not.the centre of the Christian world, there is no Head and no centre. - - ■ The See of Rome came to be regarded as the centre of Christendom for no other reason than that the Bishop of Rome was thought to be the successor of St. Peter in the Primacy-conferred. on him by Christ, and in his Roman Episcopate. Catholics of every age, as we can see clearly from the existing records, which. go back to the fourth century at least, have always believed in the lineal succession of the Bishop of Rome from Peter, the divinely-appointed Head of the Church, and have advanced this fact as the ground for the supremacy of the See of Rome. The evidence on which Catholics rely is so unmistakable that Protestants are forced to admit that ©atholics have always based their- belief on this ground, and that the Bishops of Rome did really succeed to Peter, and for that reason claimed supreme authority. Of course they add that the Popes usurped this, supreme authority—but that is another matter. '..:■ \