Dear Roussel,
Thanks for your letter. I have ordered last weeks
Church Times but it has not yet arrived...
I do not remember exactly what I said the other
day, but I do not think you yet know the full extent of my difficulty.
My difficulty is something like this.--Our Lord
taught 1900 yrs. ago in a country known as Palestine, for about the space of
three years. After that time He ascended into Heaven, but before doing that He
made provision for the teaching of posterity the words which He had spoken. A
great many of these words have since been written down by Evangelists under the
guidance of the Holy Ghost. That this is not sufficient of itself we see by the
fact that whereas one man who receives the Holy Scripture as the inspired Word
of God professes to find from that Scripture one thing, another man professes
to find quite another thing, and yet both alike profess to find it after
prayer, and under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Take for instance the
question of the Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar. Here,
O'Bardsy, Vicar of St. Peter's, Bdfd., tells his congregation that in the Holy
Eucharist they do not really & truly receive the Body and Blood of our
Lord, whilst in the neighboring parish of St. Mary Magdalene's, Wm. Redhead,
the Vicar, tells his congregation that in the Holy Eucharist they do really and
truly receive the Body and the Blood of our Lord. Now both of these men profess
to have found their respective doctrines from the same source, and under the
same guidance. But it is perfectly obvious that one of them must be in the
wrong. Which of them is it?
Now as I have said, our Lord did make provision
for the teaching of His people after he was gone. He did establish a Church
which should teach the world that which is contained in Holy Scripture, &
should be able to decide, if necessary, what was the meaning of any disputed
passage, and should be able to solve any doubts and difficulties of any of its
members. Now this was a great work for Him to give to His Church, but He also
made it able to do it. He did send it the promised Comforter whom he promised
would remain with it always (St. John XIV. 16). And again, when He sent them
out to preach, He promised that He Himself would be with them...
This Church then must be at the present time in
existence & always have existed since the time when Our Lord founded it.
Nextly -- How are we to recognize it? We are told
- By their fruits ye shall know them.
So I next try to find out what would the
characteristics of such a Church be?
The first thing I find is that whatever it teaches
must be absolutely true. The Holy Ghost dwells within it. Our Lord Himself
abides with it -- therefore whatever it teaches is true, for if not it must be
untrue, and God cannot back up what is not true, for if He did He would cease
to be God. It must then be Infallible.
If then it is infallible it must be one, for ...
It cannot be divided -- "A house that is divided against itself cannot
stand." It must be absolutely uniform on all matters of Doctrine (F[athe]r['s]
objection about Card. Newman's ..... does not touch this for it was not a
matter of doctrine, but merely a policy).
It must be Catholic and Apostolic.
Now let me look at the different views on the
Catholic Church held by those who call themselves Catholics.
The Anglicans maintain that the Church consists of
different "branches". The "English Church" is one, the
"Roman Church" another, and the "Eastern Churches" others.
Now they admit that all these "branches" differ amongst each other on
certain points of doctrine. For instance, on the question of
Transubstantiation, or on the question of Purgatory & Indulgences. Are they
then one? Yet no Anglican dares to say that his branch alone is Catholic, and
others are heretical. Again, why does not the whole Church speak, and say which
is right? Our Lord is still with it, for He promised to be with it always. The
Holy Ghost still dwells in it, and animates it. Can the Church ever cease to
teach whilst there are still doubts & difficulties to overcome?
Now the "Roman" view on the other hand,
says that the Church must be one. But in order to secure it being one, Our Lord
provided it with a visible Head, without which, the Roman Catholics claim there
can be no true unity. Those who do not recognize this one Head are outside the
Church, just as much as a branch cut off from a tree is no longer a part of the
tree. Now when I look at this view I do find that the Church, according to the
Roman view of it, has always been one, for it has always looked to the Pope for
guidance, & has accepted as true what has been taught by the Pope. The
Church, according to this view of it, must be one for the Pope cannot at some
time make two directly opposite statements, nor, the Roman Catholics claim, can
he at different times teach different doctrines, for he speaks only as the
mouthpiece (so to speak) of the Church, and therefore at the bidding of the
Holy Ghost who is the life & soul of the Church.
The Doctrine on infallibility of the Pope follows
from the Doctrine on the Infallibility of the Church, once the Roman Catholic
view of the Church is accepted. There can be no doubt, I think, that a Church
bearing the characteristics which the Roman Catholics claim belong to the
Church, has existed from the time of the Apostles themselves. And that this
Church has always called itself the Catholic Church (& always did
acknowledge the English Church to be part of it, until the English Church at
the Reformation denied the Supremacy of the Pope.) And we know well enough that
it does exist, and that it is in a flourishing condition at the present time.
It seems to me that Anglo-Catholics (so-called)
profess that they teach what has been taught by the whole Church, but that each
man is to use his own private judgement as to what has been taught by the
Church.
Roman Catholics (so-called), on the other hand,
look to their bishops to know what is the Church's teaching, and the Bishops to
the Pope. So that according to the Roman Catholic view, a man has only to use
his private judgment when he declares himself to be a Catholic or no.
Thus I find two views. -- If one be true, the
Church is a disunited body. If the other is true, the Church is a United body.
Which am I to accept?
The direct arguments as to the Supremacy of the
Bp. of Rome, which have especially appealed to me, I think, I gave pretty fully
in my last letter.
As to whether St. Peter was even Bp. of Rome seems
to me to be sufficiently answered by the fact that it was never questioned
until three or four centuries ago. There are other arguments -- perhaps better
ones -- which I have not time to go into now.
With much love
Believe me,
Yr. very loving brother
Wm. Byles
