'To the Editor of the 'Nomu-Ciuxa Dany News'
Su,—The unity of the five original Patriarchates was essentially" the oneness of their dogmas and teach~ ngs, notwithstanding differences in outward forms of worship. The dogmas and teachings of the presont-Orthodox Catholic Church are the same as they were at the end of the first millennium, 2¢ therefore the Orthodox Church is not the Catholic Church now, It was not the Catholic Church "then. Neither was the Church of Rome, in such case, for her dogmas and' teachings were at the time the same as those of the rest of the Orthodox Churel= And the Inevitable conclusion. following from the whole would be that no Catholic Church ever existed, The IV Geumenical Council bad declared the erced of Nicea perfect, adding that under pain of deposition and anathema, it was not lawful for anybody to propose, compile, hold teach any other faith, The decree had been recited word for word and. yeaMrmed with equal solemnity the Vand "VI Councils, Most explicit on this head was the oath taken by the Popes of Rome themselves, who swore at their election to preserve unmutilated the decrees of the fest six Councis, We ind for the rst time an alteration in. the fMeial oath in the XIth century And we look in vain for any general council authorizing the Insertion of the Filioque. Patriarch Photius rightly declares, therefore, In his Encyclical of 867, that, the Church of Rome has erred in alter~ Ing ered and introducing a new dogma. On the authority of the Church, he pronounces the Church of Rome excommunicated, Rome even tually: repents, and in 897 (Council of Constantinople) is re-admitted to the fold, At the last session of that Council, the Pope's John VIID) Epistle is read, In which he solemnly condemns those who add the Filioque to. the. creed: "quasi Divini Verbi transgressores, theotogiae Christi Do-'This "voice of have remained in Tater-times Rome "the voice of one corying in the wilderness." for in. 1054 mutual and. definite excommunication followed between the East and the West, 'The Church of Rome thence became a separate body, inasmuch as her teachings had already begun deviating from the right course thereto followed by' the whole Church, and. there= after followed by" the remaining four Patriarehates, with their ranil= Neations, 0 the present day 'The whole controversy between the Catholic Church and the Church fof Rome is really the question: are the bishops of the "presiding" Church' (which was. originally, as: we know from the Acts, the Church of Jerusalem, and later on that of Rome) the "absolute masters and dictators of the Church, whom she must blindly obey? Gr are they merely the Church's testes Crquibus nefes osset procuration sib credit am tantitlum excedere")? The Orthodox Church has always maintained the fatter, The Church of Rome always stood for the former, but did not proclaim it openly: until 1970: although Innocent IMT clearly teaches "that the Church may "depose a Pope of Rome for heresy (potest dimittere Pontificem Romanum: proper infidelitate er= verein).
As to putting people "back on the ight track," your correspondent R.
may. be' Jaterested to hear that Jesus Christ alone is the Head and Foundation of His Church: that when He said (Mat, xvi, 17) "thou art Peter, and upon this rock. He meani that He himself was that Peter, that Rock, Apparently R. C. ix noi aware of the fact that verse 2 of the same chapter does not his understanding of verse 1 that T Cor, ill, 4 positively con tradiets_it, that the explanations of verse 17 hx given, for instance, St. Augustin, by 'Chrysostom ma: be' better ones than his own (they fave certainly tess rudimentary). And it R. Crs understanding of the text's be nevertheless: maintained, then the claims that are made in favour of Rome had better be ferred to Antioch, inasmuch as St, Poter was the first bishop of that Church, and the "present-day Orthodox, Patriarchs of Antioch are St. Peter's direct successors. (All efforts of Rome to prove that St Peter was ako the frst bishop of Rome have, s0 far, defeated their purpose.)
With all. due respect to. other people's religious feelings beliefs, T must nevertheless frankly admit that statement is pre= can hardly be serious when he of Orthodox Catholics (mostly Rus-
Siang) and' 217 millions of Protestants" Game of the latter. as in my previous letter, ar indistinguishable from us in their teachings) that "The Roman Catholic Church' is the only Church that has:
Jdared, sith any rightful justification, {to claim to be the universal church, Ko. The Catholic Church" t Shanghai, Sept, 30, 'A Protestant Challenge the Editor of the Nowtn-Cuisa Dany News"
Stm—With reference to the controversy over the catholicity or othe! wise of the Church of Rome, will you kindly grant_me_sufcient space 10 make known the contents of a pamphlet T have before me. This Pamphlet is issued by the Protestant Truth Society of London, and bears the following headline: "Worth Try ing For! Reward of £10,000!" It then goes on to state that the Society will offer a reward of a thousand pounds sterling tony Roman Catholic Who shall produce one text of Holy Scripture in proof.of each of the following ten propositions.
1. That we ought to pray to the VEE ae tne wine, at the Lord's 'Table ouuMt only' to be taken by the Prue nat St. Peter had no, wife, That priests ought not 19 mares.
That "we ought, to pray to the dacnd, or for the dead.
that there are. more Mediator sgen God and' men than one.
Sfhat St, "Peter was Bishop of Grhat the Virgin Mary can save! "9, 'That the Church of Rome is the'
18. That the Pope of Rome is the Yitar of Christ, or the suetesior 'AI answers, which must, be drawn from Moly. Scripture. "tobe sent to The Protestant Truth Society "tine, Kensit. Secretary), 3 & 4, St Bouts Churetiyard, London, BEA.
There need be no fear that this is. 'a mere publicity stunt, or that the money will not be forthcoming if the desired texts are produced. The resident of the Society is the Hon, Lancelot W, Joynson-Hicks, and among. the "numerous vice-presidents are sich honourable names as Sir Thomas Inskip, Admiral Sir G. F. King-Hall, Sir Archibald Campbell of Succoth, Sir Edgar Plummer; Brig.-Gen. G. Taylor, A. Lindsay Glegg, and a umber of others who would not lend their names to any unethical enter prise, In closing T might bring to the attention of those interested that St. Paul commended the nobility of the Bereans in that they, searched the Scriptures daily, to ascertain whether the theological principles he taught them were amenable to Scriptural proof or not. (Acts 17:11).
It would certainly be more con-vineing were your Roman Catholic readers to obtain Biblical proof of their contentions (and incidentally place themselves in line for a half million dollar reward), instead of writing to you and getting exactly nowhere, Shanghai, Oct. 2, Canon Law and Heretics To the Editor of the "Nowmi-Cinwa Dancy News"
Sin—Two allegations are made by your correspondent Veritas Vixctr (Friday, September 29) both of which ¢ am forced to qualify as objective misstatements of fact, with-'Out of course questioning the personal yoed ath 0f heir sponsor:
(1) A conciliar Canon, still unrepealed, "sentences to death everyone rejecting the hegemony of the Chures of Rome:
(2) Certain unexpunged passoes of "R, C. Canon Law claim that the Romaa Catholic Church haz the right of the sword over heretics."
'These are serious accusations; and your tolerant, fair-minded readers: can readily appreciate how offensive and cruel they sound to the Catholic mind against' which they are 30. alibly, s0 categorically, set forth in public forum. Let' us sce how snatch worth there is in them, As for the first charge, the writer no doubt "intends by' the word "hegemony" nothing more than what the more careful historian and theo-logions call. the Church's "spiritual tion" The Church also had I rights—part of its "hege-Nor will I take advantage of the rash opening he leaves one by: his comprehensive "everyone." The Jews, for instance, have no part in the Canon whatever. "What he most kely means ig that the Couneit con-dernns heretics to death. Now, a heretic was one who formally and publicly denied "certain doctrines Taught by the Church as belonging to the divine Christian revelation. This precision simplifies the question considerably.
Mention is made of Canon Three of the Second Lateran Council (In nocent If, 1139). Thaccurately, how ver, for it was not the Second but! the Fourth Lateran Council (innocent HI, 1215) that promulgated the decree fugainst the various heretical sects of ihe time. 1 take it that the "famous Bull Ad! Exstirpanda"" (innocent 1V
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.