THE PAPAL CLAIMS

Catholicism and Papacy. By Mgr. Peter Battifol, D.Litt. (Seadrift Co... 3s. dd.) . . (Seadrift Co... 3s. dd.) . .

This is the authorized translation, by Fr. Vassall-Phillips, of an important tractate, Catholicism et Papaute, in which Mgr. Battifol sets himself to counter the objections of Bishop

Gore, Fr. Puller, M. Kattenbusch, and M. Glubokovsky, the Russian ecclesiastical historian, to the modern claims of the Papacy. Needless to say, Mgr. Battifol's contention,

urged with all the learning, acuteness, and urbanity of which he is master, is that these claims are not modern at all, that the Vincentian Canon, quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus,' holds good concerning them, and that no theory of historical need or providential development must be called in aid of them.

The little collection of essays had their occasion in the " Conversations " of Malines. They are well and scrupulously translated, to the extent of footnotes giving words whose

exact equivalent in English is difficult to render, and we owe Fr. Vassall-Phillips our thanks. We owe him less thanks

for a Preface in which he says, " A Catholic historian will conduct his investigations independently of any save historical considerations, though it may in the end be necessary for

him to revise them in the light of his faith, and frankly to admit that here and there he has been mistaken." " Happily," he adds, " no such necessity presses upon Mgr. Battifol." •

We needed no such assurance. But Roman Catholicism, which has a strong case, stronger than its adherents sometimes seem to realize, suffers terribly from vague hints such as these of blinkers and leading-strings. They provoked Acton, sure of " the light of his faith " if ever man was, first to strong words, then to a silence, more eloquent than any

words. Magna est veritas, et praevalet. We turn with relief to Mgr. Battifors own Introduction, to read the verdict

of " scientific history " on the positions of Acton's friend, Diillinger. " The structure which he built up, once so impregnable in appearance, is now in pieces." There is always hope of ultimate peace in the pursuit of truth without - shyness of consequences, and reservations, and this is the atmosphere of the book before us, uncompromising as it is,

and the atmosphere also that makes possible M. Glubokovsky's recognition of " the historical Papacy," and Dr. Kidd's remarkable commendation to Anglicans of Mgr. Battifol's presentment of his case as containing " much weightier evidence than we commonly suppose."

That is so ; but these essays are too slight for very detailed comment. We may note simply here three facts which emerge from their argument. The first, which is hopeful,

is the strong recognition which Mgr. Battifol accords to the co-ordination of the magisterium of the 'Universal Epi-

scopate, including always the Bishop of Rome, with the authority of the Pope. Oecumenical Councils belong, not to the Divine Constitution of the Church, but to ecclesiastical law. Their function is not to define dogma, but to repress error. But, since Bellarmine, defending Papal infallibility, laid it down that, in order to arrive at the real truth, the Roman Pontiff ought not to neglect ordinary and human means for ascertaining it, and since a council is that ordinary means, it follows that general councils will be as necessary

in the future as in the past. Attention is drawn to the

Vatican Decree as safeguarding the freedom and usefulness of councils. But the Decree was " unilateral " in its emphasis, since its decision had to do, not with the powers

of couneils, but with the prerogative of the Pope. All this may sound unfamiliar to Anglican ears, and we have had to abbreviate it, but the net result is that Papal infallibility is not quite the hard and fast matter that it is usually supposed to be, and, indeed, that • some Roman rigorists would like to make it. It must always bd remembered that the Curia has the age-long traditions of the oldest court of law in Europe.

The second reflection we would make is that we moderns really do not understand the mentality of the mediaeval nor of the early Christian age. That they would have had 'cant recognition for what is being pressed on us under the title of " Anglo-Catholicism " we are pretty sure, and it is more and more apparent that the Gospels and Acts admit a supremacy in Peter. This, even in primitive days, became a tacit acceptance of the headship or authority of the Roman

Church; witness the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. But the potior prineipalitas of that Church, to use the phrase of Irenaeus, is held from Peter, and in the expressions of Clement and Irenaeus historians such as Lightfoot, Gwatkin and Harnack have found the norm of the after claims of Innocent, of Leo, and of Boniface himself. Yet, in the third place, these historians and others would certainly have it that the development of Papal supremacy was due to the position of Rome itself as centre of the Empire and link between East and West. Now this is a most respectable historical theory, and we do not think Mgr. Battifol at his best in combating it. For he will not have providential development, but a primal Divine appointment. We do not follow his comparisons with Mithraism and the Jewish dispersion, wherein no such headship existed at all, for neither was world-wide, neither was a political force, and, indeed, we know all too little about Mithraism. Here, in fact, is the true line of division, at present, beyond which Anglicans who are most favourable to a Papal supremacy, conceived as providential, achieved by status and services rendered to the world at large, cannot pass. That' it should be dogmatic and credal is the difficulty. And while we readily admit that Mgr. Battifol breaks a courteous lance with success now and then, where Bishop Gore or Fr. Puller ' are concerned, it is otherwise when he is confronted with expressions in the Pauline Epistles. Here his watchword seems to be " provisional."

But a short review cannot fail to do injustice to a little book the weight of whose contents is out of all proportion to its size. It repays study, and, brief as it is, badly needs an index. This, in itself, is a word of praise.