Yet Oxford possesses certain real advantages Summary of evils which must follow from the education of Catholics at Existing elements for an English Catholic University ART. VIII.-F. RYDER'S THEOLOGICAL CITATIONS. Antecedent improbability that any Catholic theologians should hold F. Ryder's alleged testimonies from Suarez, the Salmanticenses, Tanner, THE DUBLIN REVIEW. JULY, 1867. ART. I.-DR. PUSEY ON PAPAL PREROGATIVES. An Eirenicon. By E. B. PUSEY, D.D. London: Parker. Dr. Pusey and the Ancient Church. By T. W. ALLIES, M.A. London: Longmans. Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi. Auctore Patricio MURRAY. Dublin: M'Gloshlan. Clementis Schrader de Unitate Romana. Vienna: Mayer & Co. HE scriptural and patristic argument for Papal Prerogatives is so overwhelming and irresistible, that the insensibility of Anglicans to its force is at first sight one of the most. amazing facts in the whole world. It would be a great mistake, however, to suppose that this insensibility proceeds chiefly from any intellectual cause whatever. To a thinker like Dr. Pusey, various doctrines practically taught by Rome are so very distasteful,—and the very supposition of his being simply external to the Visible Church is so absolutely intolerable, that arguments have no access to his mind. may add that even were his prejudices far less violent than they are, his is not the structure of intellect which would appreciate a chain of reasoning, be its force ever so solid and unanswerable. -- We Putting aside, however, personal considerations, with which we are but indirectly concerned, there is one very serious argumentative fault which has considerable share in blinding an Anglican's perception. The two questions of Papal Primacy and Ecclesiastical Unity are indissolubly connected with each other; so that the latter doctrine is of prominent importance as a means of establishing the former: whereas Anglicans persist in perversely separating the two. It was for this reason that in January we prefaced our argument on the question now before us, by a careful consideration of that other logically preliminary subject. Anglicans and Catholics are of course agreed in the fundamental proposition, that Christianity came *Certain Unionists seem to think that the "Greek Church" forms an exception to our remark made in the above extract, that the Roman Catholic Church alone can possibly be the Apostolic. We had already pointed out, We should further add that this society has ever preserved an identity of name: an identity which both symbolizes and confirms its identity of essence. From the very days of S. Ignatius Martyr, says F. Schrader (vol. i. p. 2), the name of "Catholic" has prevailed as intrinsic and peculiar to the One True Church, and as distinguishing her from all other societies. Here then at once arises our obvious and irresistible demonstration of Papal prerogatives. The Church in communion with Rome has ever been the One Catholic Church; and whatever is taught at any period by the One Catholic Church is infallibly true. These two propositions were established in our January number. But Dr. Pusey will himself admit that the Church in communion with Rome has in these later cen turies uniformly taught that very Papal doctrine, which he denies as false and denounces as tyrannical. Since, therefore, she teaches Papal doctrine,-and since all her doctrine is infal libly true, her Papal doctrine inclusively enjoys that privilege. It is infallibly true, as the Council of Florence decreed, that the Roman Pontiff is Christ's true Vice-gerent; that he is father and teacher of all Christians; that he possesses full power of feeding, ruling, and guiding the Universal Church; forth a claim to the gift of infallibility. These words have since then received support from an unexpected quarter. The Union Review of March (pp. 189197) publishes certain so-called "principles of Catholic orthodoxy, by a member of the holy Eastern Church," followed by a letter from the same member of that schismatical communion. This writer maintains (p. 192) that "both the English and Roman Churches lie under the material interdict and anathema of the Church Universal," because of their retaining the "Filioque." There cannot be a graver ecclesiastical charge; and we ask at once on what ground the author bases it. The position which he assumes is very remarkable. He does not allege any Divine promise whatever that the whole body of patriarchs-or, again, the great majority of bishops throughout the world-may not fall into the very error which he ascribes to the Pope; though of course he thinks that if they did fall into it, they would ipso facto fall away from the Body of Christ. Neither, again, does he ever so distantly profess that any infallible authority whatever condemned this (supposed) error when it arose, and pronounced its maintainers external to the Church. His whole attack rests on his own interpretation of Antiquity and of the Ecumenical Councils. We should add that the letter is interesting and most temperately written; and that the doctrinal question of the "Filioque" is one which a Catholic controversialist is bound to consider. We are not without hope that on some future occasion we may offer to our readers a treatment of the whole subject; but we may mention meanwhile, that nowhere have we seen a more complete and exhaustive defence of the Roman Catholic Church on this matter, than in the debates of Florence. The Greek orators were silenced by their opponents; and indeed all, except Mark of Ephesus, converted by them. |