A revolution broke out in Oporto in 1820, and was followed by revolutions in all the states of Brazil, crying out for a constitutional government. The king returned to Lisbon and died there on the 1st of March 1826.

Though Don Pedro in his father’s lifetime became Emperor of Brazil, and declared his empire independent of Portugal, his claim to the throne of Portugal after his father’s death was recognized by all the Powers of Europe except Spain. Content with his western empire, he abdicated the throne of Portugal, on the 2nd of May 1826, in favor of his daughter Donna Maria da Gloria, then 7 years of age. He offered her in marriage to his brother Miguel, and on getting Miguel’s promise, which from the nature of the case could not be fulfilled for some years, he appointed him Regent and Lieutenant General of the kingdom. Don Miguel got himself proclaimed king on the 25th of April 1828, and annulled the constitution of Don Pedro. A revolution broke out at Oporto, which soon expanded into formidable dimensions by large supplies of men and money from France and England with Don Pedro in person at the head of the army. Towards the end of 1833 Donna Maria was proclaimed Queen, and Don Pedro was made Regent. His first act was to confiscate the property of all who had served under Don Miguel. He also suppressed all religious houses and confiscated their property. The Miguelite army was yet 18,000 strong; but on the 26th of May 1834 a convention was entered into by which Don Miguel formally consented to renounce all claims to the throne of Portugal, and to abandon the country.

On the suppression of the monasteries all friendly relations with Rome were suspended, and so remained for nearly eight years. Within that period all the Indian Sees, which had Bishops, became vacant. In St. Thomé, Malacca and Macao there were no Bishops.

Cottineau de Cleguen remarks that the last consecration of Bishops in Portuguese India took place in the year 1825, when two Dominicans were consecrated Bishops, one for Cranganore, and the other for Cochin. The former died the following year, and the latter was translated to Pernambuco in the Brazils.

On the 24th April 1838, Pope Gregory XVI. issued the famous Bull Multa proeclare, suppressing the Bishoprics of Cranganore, Cochin, St. Thomé and Malacca, which were all in British territory, and parceling them out to the Vicars Apostolic of Verapoly, Pondicherry, Colombo, Madras, Calcutta, Ava and Pegu. (p. 110).....................

................ (From pag. 126.)

Towards the middle of the year 1841 political relations were re- established between the Portuguese Government and the Holy See.

On the 19th of June in the year 1843 Joseph da Silva Torres was appointed Archbishop of Goa. He was highly recommended to the Pope for his faith, learning and probity. He was forewarned by the Pope’s Nuncio that he should not molest the several Vicars Apostolic of India, who were all under the immediate orders of the Pope. He wrote a letter to the Pope on the 12th of March 1843 to express his entire obedience and submission to the Holy See. The Pope wrote him a letter dated 8th July 1843, which was to be delivered to him along with his Bulls, explaining to him the state of India, and the arrangements of the Holy See with regard to it. This letter may be seen in the Madras Catholic Expositor, vol. iv. page 304.

No sooner had Torres arrived at Bombay than he acted in opposition to all his former professions. He received an admonition in due course from Pope Gregory XVI., and another from Pope Pius IX. He disregarded both admonitions, and it was decided at Rome in 1847 that he should be set aside. The Pope’s Nuncio, who was then at Rome and was about to return to Lisbon, got special instructions to press the matter upon the Portuguese Government. He did so, and reported early in the following year the conditions, upon which the Portuguese Government was prepared to comply with the wishes of the Pope. The Cardinal Secretary of State wrote to Lisbon in reply on the 8th of July; but, owing to the disturbed state of the times, the letter miscarried. On the 21st of October the question was finally settled at Lisbon, and the terms agreed upon were communicated to the Pope at Gaeta, His Holiness having fled from Rome on the 24th of November. On the 22nd of December in a consistory held at Gaeta Archbishop Joseph was translated from the church of Goa to the Archbishopric of Palmyra in partibus infidelium, and in the following month he was appointed commissary of the Bull Cruciata. It was the desire of the Portuguese Government that he should be appointed also coadjutor with the right of succession to the Archbishop of Braga; but as a condition of this appointment the Pope required an apology, which Torres could not bring himself to make for two years after. The admonitory letter of Pope Gregory XVI., dated 1st of March 1845, was published in the Madras Catholic Expositor, vol. v. page 263.

In 1853 the Bishop of Macao, Jerome Joseph Matha, was brought to Goa by the Government of Portugual to give confirmation. He disembarked at Ceylon, and gave confirmation in the schismatic chapel at Colombo on the 19th of January. Complaint was made to Rome by the Vicar Apostolic of Colombo, and Pope Pius IX. wrote Matha an admonitory letter on the 11th of March, which it was deemed desirable to circulate as widely as possible in India, and it was published accordingly in the Madras Examiner the same year on the 14th of June.

Matha proceeded to Goa, and thence to Bombay, where he not only gave confirmation, as in Colombo, but preached publicly against the Vicar Apostolic, and conferred Holy Orders on a few hopeful candidates, who were expelled for misconduct a few days before from the seminary of the Vicariate. 30

When these doings of Bishop Matha at Bombay were reported to the Holy See, Pope Pius IX. wrote Matha a second admonition, and issued the Apostolic Brief Probe nostis, dated 9th May 1853, declaring the Goanese recusant priests of British India liable to the penalties of the Canon Law against schismatics, and denouncing four of them by the express mention of their names, and threatening them with the severest ecclesiastical penalties, unless within two months after the publication of the said Brief at Bombay they renounce their opposition to the Vicars Apostolic. The four denounced priests, Mariano Antonio Suarez, Gabriel de Silva, Braz Fernandez and Joseph de Mello, remained obstinate, and some time after they were honored with a vote of thanks in the Cortes of Lisbon.

The facts connected with the supersession of the Archbishop of Goa were so flagrantly and daringly misrepresented by the Goanese faction in India, that it was judged necessary, under the special orders of Pius IX. to send out to India for publication the Allocution of His Holiness in secret consistory on the 17th of February 1851, with the apologetic letter of the Archbishop of Palmyra, and the reply of His Holiness thereto, which by giving full particulars put the matter in its proper light. These important documents may be found in the Madras Catholic Expositor vol. xi. page 83. The Brief Probe nostis. was published in the Madras Examiner on the 19th of July 1853.

Don Pedro V. arrived at his majority (eighteen years) on the 16th September 1855. He made profession in the strongest terms of his attachment to the Holy See, and negotiations, were feebly conducted for three years, to settle existing differences about the exercise of the Royal Patronage in India, were pushed forward with earnestness and vigour. A concordat was drawn up, and signed on the 21st February 1857 by two Plenipotentaries, viz. on the part of Pope Pius IX. the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinal Camillo di Pietro Apostolic Pro-Nuncio in Portugal, and on the part of Don Pedro V. the Most Excellent Rodrigo de Fonceca Magalhaes, Honorary Secretary of State. A letter of the Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation de propaganda fide, dated 18th February 1860, announced to the Vicars Apostolic of India, that the concordat had been signed by the Pope, whereby the policy prescribed in the Bull Multa proeclare, and systematically pursued by the Holy See for upwards of 20 years, is completely reversed, and all the pretensions of Portugal fully recognized. How far Portugal may be able to profit of the concordat is yet wrapped up in mystery.

The first step to the execution of the concordat has been already taken. John Christopher d’ Amorea Pilloa has been translated to the Archbishopric of Goa from the diocese of St. James of Cape Verd, and his translation was confirmed by the Pope in a secret consistory held on the 22nd of March 1861. It is stated in the Tablet of the 8th of June 1861, that His Holiness had been pleased to appoint the very Reverend Monsignor E. Howard, D.D., to accompany the Bishop of Parma (an exile from his see) on a special mission to Goa in the East Indies, for the purpose of carrying into execution the concordat lately concluded between the Holy See and Crown of Portugal. The Bombay Catholic Examiner of the 29th of June affirms that the Archbishop of Goa may be expected in Bombay in the month of October next, and that he will be enthroned by the Bishop of Parma, Monsignor Felix Cantimorri, Ord. Min. Cap. who comes out in quality of Apostolic Delegate.

26th July 1861.

(Directory, 1862 page 129.)

The Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. 3I

This supremacy or chief authority does not mean that the Pope has a higher degree of Priesthood than other Bishops. Of the various degrees of Priesthood, that of Bishop being the highest, the Pope is, in that respect, no higher than any other lawfully ordained Bishop. But, by the Pope’s supremacy is meant that, as among the Bishops there is a difference in authority and jurisdiction, some being Bishops, others Archbishops, others Primates, and others Patriarchs, so the Bishop of Rome is, in authority and jurisdiction, above all Bishops, as well as above all the faithful of the universal Church on earth.

It is essential to the constitution of the Church that one of her Bishops should be recognised supreme in authority, otherwise it would be next to impossible to stay threatening abuses which local Bishops might be unwilling or unable to correct; to apply a remedy if a Bishop of any diocese has become perverted in faith or morals; to settle matters in dispute which might arise between Bishop and Bishop, or between Bishops and laymen. Without this supreme authority there would not be union or sympathy between one part of Christendom and the other;-to assemble General Councils would be almost impossible; to found new Bishoprics, to fill up vacant Sees, and to transfer a Bishop from one See to another, would naturally fall into the hands of lay persons, or at least be dependent on them; and the sending of missionaries to foreign parts would either not be attended to, or done in a timid, lax, irregular, and inefficient manner. It is a most remarkable fact that every nation hitherto converted from Paganism to Christianity since the days of the Apostles has received the light of faith from Missionaries who were either especially commissioned by the See of Rome, or sent by Bishops in open communion with that See.

Besides, if such supreme spiritual authority did not exist, there would be instead of one Church many Churches opposed one to another, some of them being kept together only in a hollow union consisting in outward conformity kept up by temporal power. It could not in that case be said that the Church of Christ is one, nor could she then be compared to a human body with many members and one visible head; nor could she be called a kingdom, unless a kingdom divided against itself, and a kingdom without a king.

Suppose, for example, that one of the British Colonies were to withdraw itself from the jurisdiction of the British Crown: from that time, even though the inhabitants were of British race, tongue, and customs, and had similar laws, that colony would evidently cease to form part of the British empire. In like manner any part of Catholicity withdrawing itself in spiritual matters from the centre of the supreme ecclesiastical authority, would from that time cease to be part of the heaven-born Kingdom of the Catholic Church. Such a body of Christians would become independent, and denominational, or national; but a living branch or part of the one visible Catholic body it could not be.

It being essential, then, that one of the Bishops should preside over the visible Church of God on earth, which of all the Bishops in the world should we naturally think ought to be invested with that supremacy? Should it be the Bishop of Jerusalem, of Antioch, of Constantinople, of Alexandria, of Paris, of London, or of Rome?

St. Peter, from the day of Pentecost, exercised, as appears from the first twelve chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, a supremacy over the other Apostles and over the whole Church; it therefore seems just that the See permanently chosen by St. Peter, and in which he died, should be regarded as enjoying that privilege. Now, it is a well attested fact, as is proved by history and monumental evidence, that the permanent See chosen by St. Peter was Rome, then the Capital of the Roman Empire, and that there he suffered martyrdom by being fastened to a cross with his head towards the earth at his earnest entreaty, deeming himself unworthy to suffer crucifixion in the same manner as his divine master.32 St. Peter indentified in his own person in the Roman chair, both Episcopal and Primatial dignity, therefore also those who after him lawfully occupy this chair unite and identify in themselves both authorities, so much the more so that if St. Peter during his life might have separated these two authorities, this separation after his death could no longer be done; unless therefore, as Bossuet rightly observes, we pretend that the successors of St. Peter must come straight down from Heaven, we must confess that there are no other successors of St. Peter but the Roman Pontiffs.

The Bishops of Rome, in fact, always claimed and still claim that supremacy, and no other Bishop in the world claims it, or ever did claim it.

Some have indeed pretended to see an exception in Pope St. Gregory the Great, because in his Letter (iv.20.) to John the Patriarch of Constantinople, he rejects the title of universal Bishop. We must observe, however, that though St. Gregory rejected that title and was satisfied, like other Popes, with the title of Bishop of Rome, he did not ,however, reject the supremacy of jurisdiction, but asserted it in plain words for himself, as other Popes had done and he asserted it in that very Letter: for, speaking in it of the See of Constantinople, he says: ‘who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See?’ and again, he says: "When Bishops commit a fault, I know not what Bishop is not subject to it" (that is, to the See of Rome). St. Gregory moreover repeatedly exercised the supremacy. Let it suffice here to mention what we read in the instruction he gave to the Benedictine Monk, St. Augustine (or Austin as he is often called), when he sent him to England, in which instruction he says: "We give you no jurisdiction over the Bishops of Gaul,........ but we commit to your care all the Bishops of Britain." (History of Venerable Bede, i.27.) No Pope has exercised universal jurisdiction over every part of Christendom more amply than St. Gregory, justly styled the Great.

In all ages the Bishop of Rome has been regarded by all Bishops, kings and nations that were Catholic as the successor of St. Peter, and as the supreme visible ruler and administrator of the Catholic Church; and whenever any one rejected the Pope’s Supremacy, from that moment he was not regarded as a Catholic.

The very names of Romanist, Papist, and Ultramontane, so freely given to Catholics by those outside the Church, show that they see that the essential feature in Catholicism is, that Catholics, although belonging to different nations, yet form one compact body with their common centre of authority in Rome. They see that it is this that makes Catholics what they really are, one Fold, one Body, one Kingdom in spiritual matters, one Church. They can see that, in default of this supremacy, Catholics would cease to be Catholics, and would be throughout the world like stray sheep at the mercy of any who might take advantage of their division.

Protestants for the most part are under the impression that this supreme authority of the See of Rome is a usurpation, that it did not exist originally, but was introduced in course of time.

History proves, however, that the Pope’s supremacy was as firmly believed by Catholics in the first ages of Christianity as in those that followed. So far from there being any difference on this head, the fact is, that whilst the supremacy of the Pope has been rejected in later ages by the schismatical Churches of the East, and by Protestant communities which have separated themselves from the Catholic Church, for the first seven hundred years the whole of Christendom united in believing and proclaiming and submitting to the supremacy of the Roman See. So much so that about the year 140, the then ruling Pontiff Sixtus I. could issue the rule that no Bishop going back from Rome to his own Diocese without a "Littera formata," that is, without the Apostolic declaration that he was recognised by the Roman Pontiff to be in communion with him, his diocesans were bound not to regard him as their legitimate Pastor (H.W.Wouters. Epoca II.§ 9.- History of the Roman Pontiffs by Artaud de Mentor).

The Fathers of the primitive Church had no doubt whatever that the Roman Pontiff was, by God’s appointment, the Supreme Pastor of `sheep’ and `lambs;’ that is (as interpreted by the Fathers of the Church) of the whole flock of Christ, and the visible source of all spiritual jurisdiction. To reject this truth was, in their judgment, to ruin the whole fabric of the Church; to deny His Vicar was to deny Christ. No one ever pretended to create this majestic office, the divine institution of it was always taken for granted. The Councils did not invent it, but bore witness to it as older than themselves.

"The Roman Church always had the Primacy," said the Fathers of Nicaea33 in the year of our Lord 325, as quoted by the Council of Chalcedon a.d. 451.34

The great Council of Sardica, 347, wrote to Pope Julius I., that it was ‘most fitting that the Bishops of the Lord make reference from all the Provinces to the head, that is, the See of the äpostle Peter."

The Council of Chalcedon, in 451, not only deposed Dioscorus, Archbishop of Alexandria, in obedience to Pope St. Leo I., called ‘the Great’ whom the Fathers inscribed as ‘the most blessed Apostle Peter, who is the rock and ground of the Catholic Church,’ but did so because Dioscorus had "dared to hold a Council without the authority of the Apostolic See." And this Council of Chalcedon was notably an Eastern Council. More than 600 Bishops attended it from the East, and only two, Bishop Paschasinus and the Priest Boniface(the Pope’s Legates) were from the West: yet in their Synodical letter the Council called the Roman Pontiff: "the interpreter to all of the voice of the blessed Peter.’ They say that he is entrusted by the Saviour with the guardianship of the ‘Vineyard,’ and they humbly solicit him to confirm their Counciliar acts by his ‘supreme authority.’ All the Councils, one after another, say the same thing, and they all ground the doctrine which they all attest, upon the words of our Divine Lord.

Many Protestants, following the ‘Book of Homilies,’ say that they accept the first six General Councils. Should they, however, accept only the first four General Councils, admitted by the English Parliament in the first year of Queen Elizabeth (1558,ch.I,Sec.36) as authority in the trial of heresies, they must accept the doctrine of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, for to the Fathers of Ephesus and Chalcedon the opinion of those who deny the supremacy of the Pope would have seemed a hateful impiety, a denial of the Gospel, and a subversion of the Church of Christ.

The ancient Fathers agree with the early Councils in proclaiming the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. St. Cyprian (Who died in the year of our Lord 258) says that the Pope is the only‘ fount of spiritual jurisdictions’; and St. Maximus (Who died 335), that ‘whoever anathematises the Roman See, anathematises the Roman Church:’ and St. Ambrose (397), that ‘where Peter is there is the Church,’ ‘Ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia’ (in Psalm xl.); and St. Innocent I. (417), that ‘the very episcopate and all the authority of this title sprung from the Apostolic See;’ and St. Jerome (420), ‘whoso gathereth not with thee scattereth;’ and St. Augustine (430), that ‘the See of Peter is the Rock against which the proud gates of hell prevail not.’

That great Father , St.Irenaeus, who flourished only a little more than a hundred years after the death of Christ, and had seen some of those who had seen our Lord, tells us expressly, ‘that all Churches and all the faithful of Christ are bound to agree with the Roman Church on account of her superior principality.’ (Against Heresies, book 3, Chap. 7.)

The Roman See is the supreme Tribunal before which the Saints have always pleaded. St. Cyprian (who died in the year 258) told Antonianus that ‘to be united with the See of Rome is to be united to the Catholic Church.’ St. Dionysius of Alexandria (271), being accused of heresy, implores Pope Dionysius I. to examine and judge his faith. St. Peter of Alexandria (312) has recourse to Pope Damasus I. St. Athanasius (373) driven from his See, appeals to the Roman Pontiff Julius I. St. Augustine (402) accept the judgment of Innocent I. as that of Heaven. St. Cyril of Alexandria (430) wrote a letter to Pope Celestine I., praying him to judge the heresy of Nestorius. Everywhere the Roman Pontiff, whether a Victor, a Dionysius, a Damasus, an Innocent, or a Gregory, claims the same supreme authority, and everywhere the Saints confess with acclamation that he derives it from God.

In all these instances the cases submitted to the judgment of the Holy See were carefully investigated and judicially discussed, and ample justice was done to the contending parties. Ecclesiastical history is full of similar appeals, when the adverse parties manifested the most perfect acquiescence in the authority and equity of the judge.

Every part of Christendom bears witness, from the earliest ages, that the Church is built on Peter. A dispute having arisen in the Church of Corinth as to who should be regarded as the legitimate Pastor, the Corinthians did not apply to any Apostle then living, not even to St. John in Ephesus, but applied to Rome, to St. Clement,35 the third successor of St. Peter. The Christian historian Socrates relates, that at one and the same time the Bishops of Constantinople, Gaza, Ancyra, and Adrianople, driven from their Sees, committed their cause to Pope Julius. The Council of Antioch adopts the words of Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, that ‘ it is an Apostolic tradition that the Church of Antioch should be directed and judged by the Church of Rome.’ Churches in places the most distant from the Roman See proclaim the same truth as strongly as those which are situated nearer to it.

In 740 St.Boniface, an Englishman, and the seven English Suffragans in Germany, wrote to the English King and to Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury, telling them what they had recently done in Synod.

‘We declared,’ they say, ‘that we would preserve the Catholic faith, and unity and subjection to the Roman Church, to the end of our life; that we would be subject to St. Peter and his Vicar; that the Metropolitans should in all things strive to follow canonically the precepts of St. Peter, in order that they may be numbered among the sheep entrusted to his care: and this confession we all consented to, and subscribed, and sent to the body of St. Peter the Prince of the Apostles.’

About this time, it appears, that in the year 787 Pope Adrian I. at the request of Offa, King of Mercia and East Anglia, made Lichfield into a Metropolitan See of Canterbury. This request of King Offa was made on the plea that the extent of the Province of Canterbury was extremely large. About fifty years later, Coenulph, who had succeeded to the crown of Egforth, son of Offa, King of Mercia and East Anglia, wrote a suppliant letter to the Pope Leo III., then reigning, in his own name and in that of the Bishops and Dukes of England, saying: ‘No one presumes to gainsay your Apostolic authority; and praying that Lichfield might again be subjected as a Suffragan to the See of Canterbury. Pope Leo III., ‘by his Apostolic authority,’ granted their petition, and restored Lichfield to the former condition of Suffragan to the See of Canterbury.

At the first Council of Arles, convened by desire of the Emperor Constantine to settle the cause of the Donatists, held in 314, with the intervention of 200 Bishops, the British Bishops of London, York, and Caerleon, confessed, in the name of all their colleagues, the supreme rights and prerogatives of the Holy See.36

A similar declaration of submission to the Roman see was made by the British Bishops at the Council of Sardica, A.D. 347.37

When England had subdued Wales, and the Bishop of St. Davids was summoned to do homage to the See of Canterbury, he replied that the British Bishops had never recognised any superior ‘except the Holy See’. The Church of Scotland gave a like answer to the Archbishop of York, when he claimed jurisdiction over it, and ‘the answer was approved,’ as Lingard observes, ‘by Pope Clement III.’ These are only a few examples out of many that could be brought forward.

This office of the Roman Pontiff was given to him, not by men, but by God. It is God’s provision, God’s creation, ‘for the preservation of unity,’ as St. Thomas Aquinas remarks. It was not conferred on the Roman Pontiff by the Church; it comes directly from God. It is inherited directly from St. Peter, to whom it was given by Christ.

This supreme authority was given to St. Peter under three most remarkable similitudes.

Christ compares the Church He is about to establish to a building, and makes St. Peter, after Himself, the foundation of it: ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ (St. Matt. xvi. 18.)38 It is the foundation which upholds and keeps a building solid; and in a body of men it is clearly the ruling authority which performs the same office.

Again, our Lord compares his Church to a Town or Kingdom, the keys of which He places in the hands of St. Peter, making him the master of it; ‘And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.’ (St. Matt. xvi.19.) This expresses in a forcible way the idea of chief authority, as it does also in Isaias, referring to the Messiah: ‘I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder and he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open’(xxii.22).

Thirdly, our Lord compares His Church to a Sheepfold, and makes St. Peter head-shepherd of it: ‘Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these?..............Feed my lambs;............ Feed my lambs............Feed my sheep.’ (St. John xxi.15-17.)

These three comparisons all go to prove that our Lord conferred a supreme authority on St. Peter, whom He made the centre of unity, the ruler, and leader of His kingdom, then about to be established upon earth.

Besides these passages, in which our Lord gives to St. Peter supreme authority under these striking comparisons, we find one in which Jesus Christ, having assured St. Peter that He had prayed for him, that his faith should not fail, in the plainest language entrusted to him this commission: ‘Confirm thy brethren.’ This was given at a most solemn moment, just when the bitter Passion of our Lord was about to commence. (St. Luke xxii.32.)

These passages prove that our Lord Jesus Christ established St. Peter, and in the person of St. Peter, his legitimate successors, as the chief Pastor of His Church upon earth. For it cannot be supposed that at the death of St. Peter the Church was to remain without its visible head-pastor, without its foundation; therefore as St. Peter was to die, and the Church was to last to the end of the world, so the authority which Jesus Christ established for the purpose of keeping the whole Church together, like a compact body, was, of necessity, and according to Christ’s will, to be transmitted to St. Peter’s legitimate successors, and was to last as long as the Church itself lasted.§

§That St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, see Part III. of this book, (Catholic Belief) No. 1.

No Christian, then, should seek a pretext for denying this supremacy’ essential to the Church, clearly instituted by Christ, and plainly intended for the good of the faithful. If the Pope’s authority is great, the good derived from it to the Church is still greater. If this office is gigantic and seemingly beyond the power of man to wield, the experience of eighteen (now 19) centuries proves that it is practicable with the promised and never failing assistance of God.

In the old law there was only one supreme Pontiff or High Priest for the whole Jewish people, though the Jews in vast numbers were spread over the world. We should not wonder therefore, that, in the new Dispensation, Christ should have established only one supreme administrator of His Household on earth, that it might always be one, as He Himself is one. We should not wonder that He should have prepared a rock as the foundation of His one Church on earth based upon Himself the Foundation of all, and the very Rock of Ages.

Our Lord Jesus Christ being the Foundation of foundations (Isaias xxviii. 16), and Chief Corner Stone, has the fulness of authority over the whole Church whether in heaven or on earth, whether present or future, and is the original source of all authority and jurisdiction. Compared with the authority of Christ, that of the Pope over the Church is dependent, temporal, and, though ample, has its limits. The authority of the Pope is from Christ, under Christ, and for Christ. He only possesses this authority over the Church on earth during the few years of his Pontificate. This is but a small portion of the immense flock of Christ, which consists of ‘a great multitude which no man could number, of all nations, and tribes, and peoples, and tongues’ (Apocalypse vii. 9), and over the whole of which great multitude, when gathered together in the end of time from all the nations of the world, from all past ages, Jesus, the everlasting Shepherd of our souls, will Himself, without the ministry of any representative, visibly preside for ever and ever in heaven.

(Catholic Belief pp. 108-123).

Note 1. On page 162-163 on Lancol,-The Portuguese authors, instead of naming it cope or Greek chasuble, called it in derision lancol(blanket). They seem to have laboured in ignorance that in former times the Roman Church also celebrated Mass with such Greek chasuble or lancol as they call it, which covers all parts and it is not open on the front as the present cope. It was not an abuse but an ancient and peculiar practice in the first centuries of the Church. The chasuble opened on both sides which is in vogue in our days was, in course of time, introduced in the Latin Church for better convenience in using it.

Note 2. On page 165; on education-Considering the missionaries who impart at present an all-round education to the natives of India we must remember here, not only the Jesuit missionaries but also Foreign missionaries, Mill-Hill Fathers, Capucin and Carmelite missionaries.

Note 3. On the orthodoxy of the Syrian Christians of Malabar. pp. 170:-

John Marignoli the Pope’s Legate says:- "On Palm Sunday, 1348, we arrived at a very noble city of India called Quilon, where the whole world’s pepper is produced..........These are things that I have seen with mine eyes and handled with my hands during the fourteen months that I stayed there. And there is no roasting of the pepper as authors have falsely asserted, nor does it grow in forests but in regular gardens, nor are the Saracens the proprietors but the Christians of St. Thomas. And these latter are the masters of the public weighing office (qui habent stateram ponderis totius mundi), from which I derived, as a perquisite of my office as Pope’s Legate, every month a hundred gold fanams (coin) and a thousand when I left." (Mackenzie p.9.)

Pope Eugene IV. in 1439, writes to the Syrian King of Malabar. ‘To my most beloved son in Christ, Thomas, the illustrious Emperor of the Indians’ Health and the Apostolic Benediction:- There often has reached us a constant rumour that Your Serenity and also all who are the subjects of your kingdom are true Christians’ & c. (Mackenzie p.10.)

As a simple instance of the notorious way in which certain Western authors handle a subject foreign to them we have here an Italian’s description of Malabar.

Father Ottavio del Bambino Jesu C.D. of the Province of Toscan in Italy who was for some ten years a missionary at Verapoly during the second half of the last century, on his return from India wrote in Italian a small descriptive work of 40 pages and published it at Pisa in 1873. The title of the book is ‘Breve Notizia dei Popoli del Malabar’ (Brief notes on the people of Malabar).

Among the various curious observations in this little book I give here some two or three in an English dress for the readers’ amusement no less than for a lesson to many who are a prey to what may be called a ‘maniá’ for book making.

On pp.20-21 describing the form and features of the people of Malabar he says ‘Now what about their form? are they pretty or ugly?......In appearance most of the people are more allied to monkey than to man.’ This will certainly sound rather strange to all who have always heard of Malabar as the land of beauty. The author continues the same description and finally makes a happy exception. "But don’t you think that all are so ugly; for there are faces to be seen , the beauty of which even Europeans might envy, for example in the Cion caste (evidently the Chegon or Elava) or those who climb trees. On account of bad water, however, they are found with one leg fatter than the other." Taste of course is not a matter to be discussed, but Father Ottavio’s would be a special one but for his view of Elephantiasis.

On pp. 22-23 in the description of the cocoanut tree the author says:- ‘The trunk of the tree is hollow inside’; perhaps he wants to speak of the pithy substance inside, or perhaps he must have seen a trunk made artificially hollow and must have made a fallacious generalisation like the blind men of old who inspected the elephant. Following the same description he says, ‘The cocoanut is enclosed within a shell which being cut through or perforated you get a liquid which affords a refreshing drink. If you keep this liquid in a vessel and leave it to ferment you get what is called Kallu (toddy) the wine of the country, and it easily intoxicates, or you may make vinegar out of it according as the degree of fermentation.’ It is a pity that our toddy climbers do not follow up the valuable invention of Fr. Ottavio and easily make toddy from cocoanut water and not from the flower-bud of the same tree.

On P.26 in describing the leaves of the palm tree the author exhibits again his ingenious power of observation. These are his words, ‘There are the leaves of a tree called Pana the leaves of which are used for making umbrellas (evidently he means the taliput). From its fruit is taken sugar, and a kind of wine called Thaagraram (arrack)’. Here again the unhappy author confounds the taliput (Kudapana) and the palm tree proper (Karimpana), from the latter of which is taken the so-called sugar(Jaggery) and the arrack (not from taliput though there is another kind of Pana called Chundapana from which is also taken toddy&c.)and even these not from the fruit but from the toddy taken from the flower-bud of the palm tree.

The remaining pagers of this little book are equally pregnant with such misrepresentations of facts, the explanations of which would be worth the while of any one interested in the study of the history of mistakes.

We are however glad to see that this valuable production has not seen the light of day in the form of any further edition, and let us hope that the few surviving copies of this work will seek their final reward in some waist-paper-basket and thus be buried under oblivion.

An Observer.

To

The Publisher of the historical Notes on the Syro-Chaldean Church in Malabar.

Dear Sir,

I chanced to see an assertion in your Notes PP. 168, 169 taken from a correspondence in the ‘Catholic Watchman’, Madras, 18-25th. Sept. 1903, that the Apostle St. Thomas instituted an Indian Liturgy in Malabar which was abolished in the 4th century, and that a Syriac Liturgy was replaced by the Syro-Chaldean missionaries of Seleucia (Chaldea) who settled in Malabar at about the same time. Permit me therefore to make a few remarks on the assertion and to add here my opinion on the same.

1. The Correspondent of the ‘Watchman’ says that the Apostles instituted their Liturgies in the languages of the countries they preached in; but he cannot deny that the languages of the countries of Syria and Egypt where the great cities of Antioch and Alexandria stood were Syriac and Coptic respectively; and yet he admits that the Liturgies instituted by the Apostles in those places were in Greek. Why was that? He will admit, I hope, that in those days the Greek language was very influential in those parts. Again, at Rome, the language of the country was Latin, and yet it is a fact that the Apostle St. Paul wrote his Epistles to the Romans not in Latin but in Greek. To the why of it, he has to make the same admission that, at that period, the Greek language was very influential in the Roman provinces.

II. Let us now see whether the Syrian language had any influence in India at the time when the Apostle St. Thomas came to the country. No one will deny that India had her great mercantile communication with Persia in those days. Now what was the language spoken by the Indian merchants in the Persian countries? Certainly it must have been the language of those countries , which was no other than Syriac.

"The acts of St Thomas" proves that the man who brought the Apostle from Jerusalem to India was an Indian merchant by the name of Abannes. The language he (the merchant) spoke at Jerusalem must have been Syriac indeed. This shows that the Syrian language had a great influence in India at that time.39

III. It is a fact which can be well attested to that during the great persecution of the Christians of the Persian Empire under the King Sapor in the 4th century, a rich Syrian Colony with a Bishop at its head came to Malabar. They were sent by the Catholicos of Seleucia (most probably by St. Simon who was the occupant of the See at that time). This presupposes that the country of India with a Syriac Liturgy was formerly under him, for the obvious reason that no Catholic Bishop, even in those days of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the greatest extension, was ever permitted to appoint a suffragan Bishop outside the country of his jurisdiction.

IV. Mar John at the great Council of Nicea in 325 subscribed to the Symbol of its Faith as Bishop of Persia and Great India. It is an historical fact that Mar John was subject to the See of Seleucia, through whom India was also subject to that See. How was Mar John made Bishop of India ? Was it not by succession to his predecessors ? It is clear from the acts of the Council of Nicea that the Fathers of the Council gave Mar John no new title as Bishop of Great India but only accepted his former title as such. This clearly shows that India was subject to Persia from the Apostolic times, in ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This does not stand in the way of India to have had Indian priests and even Bishops. In this case Mar John was only a superior Bishop.40

V. Mar Ebediesus V. the late Patriarch of Babylon in his ‘Libellus Memorialis’ under date the 5th Feb. 1896 proves that the Chaldeans of Malabar have their Chaldean Liturgy from the Apostolic times, and that they were, from the very beginning, subject to the See of Seleucia through the Bishop of Persia and that the Indian priests towards the middle of the 4th century were accustomed to recite their divine offices in the same full form as the present Syro-Chaldean Canonical prayers.

The above facts prove that the Apostle St. Thomas did not found in India a local or separate Church.41 When founding Churches in the countries of their preaching, the Apostles had in view to found in the whole world one Universal or Catholic Church, and so they contrived to have Catholic union between their respective Churches, and this led them, before their seperation with each other, to compose their Symbol of Faith called the ‘Apostles’ Creed’ which compells every Christian to believe in one God, one Faith and one Holy Catholic Church. The Indian Church had this Catholic union through the Church of Persia, and this was the way how India had to be represented at the Council of Nicea through Bishop Mar John.

A Reader.

1 Instead of, ‘Mater Christi’ in the Lauretan Syriac Litany of Syro- Malabar Catholics, we find simply the title of ‘Mater Dei’ (and Mater Divinae gratiae) which seems to be one of the corrections made by the Portuguese to save the Syrians from heresy, while the Portuguese and all other nations of the Latin Rite invoke B. Mary, Mater Christi etc : but the Catholic Chaldeans of Babylon say ‘Mater Dei Fili.’

2 "Ebedjesus consecrated as Archbishop of the Thomas -Christians a priest named Joseph, the brother of his predecessor John Sulacca. Mar Joseph went to India and took charge of his diocese among the Thomas-Christians. On the ground that the students at Cranganore Seminary were not taught Syriac he refused to ordain the candidates sent to him from that Seminary. Before long the Portuguese Bishop of Cochin denounced Mar Joseph as a teacher of Nestorian doctrine and thereupon Mar Joseph was sent to Goa and thence to Portugal. On the voyage he spent his time in copying out portions of Syriac liturgy and the Carmen of Ebedjesus. A volume of his work dated Mosambique the 8th. July 1556 is in the Vatican Library. (Assemani iv 446 seventh line from footnote of page.) Arrived in Portugal, Mar Joseph made so favourable an impression upon Queen Catherine, the Infanta Mary and the Cardinal Don Henry, that he was permitted to return to India." (Mackenzie p. 17.)

3 "After this the above said Mar Joseph trickishly was called to the town of Cochin by the Bishop of Cochin. The former who in the least suspected any treachery was arrested on the spot by the soldiers and sent first to Portugal, then to Rome." (Giamil p. 602.)

4"Before he could undertake a new voyage to India, he died at Rome on the eve of being made a Cardinal, (Mackenzie p. 66 note 43.)

5 In place of the term amice we read in the original portuguese lancol which in its correct reading is an equivalent of the latin word pluviale.

6 Perhaps the author thinks that the oil used for besmearing the press in which hosts are made in order that the hosts may not stick to the instrument enters into the composition as one of the ingredients of the host.

7 Francis De Souza the author of ‘Oriente Conquistado’ seems to have extracted these views on the matter of the sacrifice of Mass from Gouvea’s Jornada (fol. 7.) who published his work in 1606 at Coimbra a century before the publication of ‘Oriente Conquistado’. Gouvea also takes a quite contrary view of the reformatory steps adopted by Mar Joseph in regard to the sacrifice of Mass. Gouvea speaks also of the usage of fermented bread and of the wine from raisins &c., but he does not speak of the alleged use of invalid matters. De Souza when he embraces the opinion of the abuse with the liquor of the palm tree seems to have put something more of his own than the original narration of Gouvea. He on the other hand has ommitted to mention some details found in Gouvea’s narration as regards the method of the preparation of the host: viz. the fact that the clerics used to sing psalms and hymns of praise when engaged in making hosts on the tower just above the high altar and let them down thence to the celebrant at the offertory by means of a string. The Bishop of Cochin in his recent notes fortasse ex orysa &c. i.e. perhaps from rice &c., has added something still more than what ‘Conquistado’ has. We think if any other Portuguese would write on the same subject he would go yet further and would remove the brackets within which the Bishop of Cochin puts his fortasse &c. Thus, history of the Syrians is invented !

8 John De Barros, born in 1496, died in 1571. In 1552 he began to publish the history of the Portuguese conquests, up to 1538 (see ‘Some Elucidations’ of the Bishop of Cochin p.10.)

9 The Missal of the Syro-Chaldeans of the Malabar has been printed at Rome, with the approbation of the Holy See, first edition in 1784 and the second in 1844, which are in use even to- day in Malabar. Hence it was not necessary for the Seminarists to transcribe a copy of the Missal, as the author has misrepresented. In fact none of the Syrians undergo this hard task since a period of a century and a half.

10 The Viceroy had him (Mar Abraham ) arrested by the order from the King of Cochin in order to send him over to Portugal. (See Oriente Conq. Part II. Conq. I. div.II.Para 24, p. 75).

11 This time the reigning Pope was Pius IV and not Pius V, the former’s immediate successor as some historians erroneously think.

12 Ex constit. Demandatam Benedicti pp. XIV 24 Dec. 1743 (pro Graecis - Melchitis)- De ritibus et moribus Ecclesiae graecae illud imprimis generatim statuendum decrevimus nemini licuisse aut licere quovis titulo et colore et quaque auctoritate aut dignitate etiamsi patriarchali aut episcopali praefulgeat, quidquam innovare aut aliquid introducere, quod integram exactamque eorumdem observationem imminuat .....

13 "Qui (Mar Abraham) quum in Malabarem venisset, inviderunt ei Franci (Lusitani) atroces et insidias struxerunt eumque interficere studuerunt; attamen juvante Christo Domino nostro ab iis servatus est. Propeterea in metu et tremore munus suum gerere vix potuit. Nam illis diebus coeperunt Franci, Dei Optimi Maximi hostes, insidias struere in viis, quibus Syri incedebant, eosque apprehendere et neci tradere. Post domini Abrahami Episcopi Syri mortem per 52 annos episcopus nullus in Malabarem venit. Deinde episcopus quidam, Francus jubente Papa Romano venit, qui Syros in suam potestatem redigere studuit, quem vero Syri aegre tulerunt. Tunc homo iste rebellis regem regionis Cochin adiit eique triginta millia aureorum duplicium dono dedit; et rex varils modiis Syros vexare coepit. Vexati sunt autem Syri ab illo rege vexatore per tres annos nec roboris quidquam Syris post vexationes illas relictum est. Ergo a rege coacti espiscopo Franco sese subjecerunt."

14 Dom Menezes, in his Italian letter dated Goa 19th December 1597 to the Patriarch of Jerusalem on the state of the Malabar Church, says:- "I inform your Excellency that if the Bishop of this Church (Malabar) has not yet been nominated, it would be of much importance to have some one from the society of Jesus in order that the fathers of that society may go to those Christians; similarly an order must be given to the Bishop that he may go by and by to extinguish the Syriac language which is not their mother-tongue; but their priests study it as they do Latin; because Syriac is the canal whence all that (Nestorian) heresy flows, and in place of it he might introduce Latin by which he may better the administration: and, above all, it is important that the Bishop may be a suffragan of this city (Goa): for, that See (Angamale) lies near the bishopric of Cochin which is a nearer suffragan See to Goa." (Vide Subsidium Patranatus pp. 12,13.)

15 It must be noted here that, supposing the resolutions were passed at Angamale by the Archdeacon, as the author represents, the cause of them was the interference of the Portuguese into the government of the Syrian Church.

16 The remove the misconceptions and prejudices of some high personages regarding the Oriental Rites and languages, we reproduce here from ‘the Catholic Watchman’ the above article on‘Rites and Languages’, against the opinion expressed by Dom Menezes and Dr. Oliveira-that the Syriac language or Malabar Rite was the canal whence the whole Nestorian heresy flowed - (Subsidium p. 53).

17 In 1445 see Giamil’s ‘Genuinae Relationes’, Pag. 11.

18 In Oriente Conquistado Vol. II, para 16, page 69. we read the following miracle wrought by a Syrian Bishop :-"In the time of Thomas Cana a Colony and the first Church were founded at Cranganore, which before was an extensive forest. In this Church of Cranganore there lived a Bishop named Mar Johannan (Mar means Lord) before the coming of the Portuguese. He raised to life the dead sacristan of the said Church, who died from a fall. The most Rev. Francis Roz S.J., Archbishop of Angamale read it in an old Chaldean manuscript, who was well aquainted with the Malayalam and Chaldean languages as his own." The Syrian Bishop referred to would be the same Mar Johannan whom Mar Jacob Abuna and his companion Bishops mention in their joint letter sent in 1504 to Patriarch Mar Elia in these words :- "Our Father Saint Mar Johannan is still alive, and he sends his salutations to you."

19 The Cardinal seems to speak of those heretics for whom the Ecumenical Council of Trent was held.

20 Here by ‘the union with the Latin Church’ must be understood that the priests of both Syrian and Latin Rites were mutually permitted then by the Holy See to celebrate the Mass and other Services in the Churches of either Rite, though the Latin priests are not yet permitted to celebrate in the Churches of Greek Catholics.

21 We reproduce here some of the Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Diamper from ‘the history of Christianity in India’ by Rev. James Hough m.a. etc. edited London 1839, who has reprinted from the literal English translation of Dr. Geddes from the original Portuguese with which he was well acquainted.

22 The missal of the Catholic Syrians of Malabar printed at Rome with the approbation of the Holy See makes mention of the Catholic Patriarch after Pope’s name and this practice is in use even today among the Syrians.

23 The Patriarch of Babylon was entitled, from early times, Catholicos of the East and in course of time the title Patriarch was also added to it; hence he was called Catholic Patriarch. From this title Catholic which means universal, it seems some historians have confounded the title Catholicos as universal Patriarch. Catholicos means primate or so. Even the Nestorians admit the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff.

24 The dissentients loudly declared that a new confession of Faith was altogether unnecessary, as, of course it implied that they had never till now been disciples of Christ." (vide D’ Orsey p. 226).

25 We think it would be to the interest of the Holy See to establish by evidence that the Catholic religion which was planted here by the Apostle St. Thomas was, by a special grace of God, and as an additional evidence to the Catholicity and Superemacy of the Church preserved here, in the midst of idolaters.

26 A dilemma was proposed by Omar Califa (in 640 a.d.) against John Philopon, keeper of the most famous, ancient, and copious library of Alexandria, who prayed him (Califa) to be kind enough to make an exception for the precious and numerous monuments of sciences, letters and arts from the general flame. But the barbarous man replied thus:- Either these books contain the doctrines conforming to the Koran, or contrary to the Koran; if they contain the doctrines conforming to the Koran then they are useless; (the Koran would be sufficient); but, if they contain the doctrines contrary to the Koran, then they are noxious to the Koran-hence he ordered the valuable library to be burnt making this false conclusion. (so here also in the case of the Syrian books.)

27 " The Christians of St. Thomas, singularly prone to their errors." Here the author of the Madras Catholic Directory seems to follow the opinion of the Portuguese writers. The Syrians, as we proved above, were Catholics before the Synod of Diamper. The then (1653) separated Syrians had not really any intention to embrace any heresy, but they were only anxious to get a Bishop of their own rite instead of one of Latin. In fact, they were using yet the Catholic practice and rite for nearly half a century till Jacobite Bishops came to Malabar and introduced here their doctrines and rites etc.

28 Historians do not agree in the point of Mar Ignatius Ahathalla’s religious belief. Some are of opinion that Ahathalla was a Nestorian Bishop and some, however, think that he was a Jacobite, while others say that he was a Catholic. The tone of his letter sent to the Syrians of Malabar shows that he was not a Nestorian, but a Catholic. The Syrians then believed also that he was a Catholic. Mackenzie in his ‘Christianity in Travancore’ Page 75, note 64 says, "The name Ahathalla in Syriac means Yau- Alaha ‘God-given’, in Greek Theodore, in Latin, Adeodatus. In India he called himself the Patriarch Ignatius. The letter is thus given by Eustache: "Behold! I, Ignatius, Patriarch of all India and of the Chinas, send you a letter by the hands of deacons who came here from your country. When you have read this letter, send to me two priests and forty men: whom, however, if you wish to send, send them cautiously, quickly and as soon as possible; that these seeing you may let me go without hindrance. Come, my sons, hearken unto me and learn from me, that all power is given to me by our Lord the Pope; for you must know that Ignatius is endowed with all power. Now, have no fear, because I have come bearing in my hands much treasure and many other riches according to your necessity. Wherefore do your utmost to bring me there. Priests and deacons of the holy flock and all Magnates, in the name of Mary the Mother of God, know ye, that I came to this city of Mylapore, because I learned that here resort many priests and men who could conduct me to your country of the Indias (Malabar). On August 2nd 1652 I arrived at Mylapore at the monastery of the Jesuits. In the same monastery I pass my time and they treat me very kindly. May their reward be increased, here and there. Peace be with them and with you and with us always. Amen.

29 The author here has omitted to mention the first Syrian Vicar Apostolic Bishop Alexander de Campo (Parampil Chandy), a native of Kuravilangad, who was consecrated in 1663 at the Kaduthuruthy Major church by Monsignor Joseph Sebastiani, the first Carmilite Bishop in Malabar on his expulsion by the Dutch Government. Because, when the town of Cochin was captured by the Dutch, not only the Portuguese clergy but also the Italian Carmilite missionaries were ordered by them to quit this coast. Pope Alexander had given power to Monsignor Sebastiani to consecrate Bishops from native Syrian priests, but he held it a secret until he was obliged to quit Malabar. In the case of European missionaries’ expulsion by the Dutch some other native Latin priests in India were also consecrated as Bishops. One of them, "Thomas de Castro, a Brahmin by descent, was a priest at Goa, and in 1675 was consecrated as Bishop and appointed Vicar Apostolic of Travancore, Tanjore and other provinces on this side of the Ganges. Probably he had jurisdiction over the Christians of the Latin rite near Cape Comorin, the descendants of the converts of St. Francis Xavier. The Bishop visited Cochin in 1677, and was received by the Dutch with much honour. He died 16th July 1684." (Vide Mackenzie p.78. note 76). But all native Bishops were succeeded by the Europeans when they were tolerated by the Dutch to come to this country. Even Bishop Chandy did not get a Syrian successor. The Carmilite missionaries, who were empowered by Rome to select a native Syrian as the successor of Bishop Chandy, selected a Latin Priest named Raphael Figueredo (a Portuguese Tuppai) who was a native of Cochin as coadjutor Bishop to Bishop Chandy instead of a native Syrian. Bishop Raphael, however, was deposed by Rome as he did not agree with Bishop Chandy in the administration of the Church. After the death of Bishop Chandy, Monsignor Angelus, an Italian Carmilite, succeeded in the administration, who was consecrated as Bishop by a Syro-Chaldean Bishop Mar Simeon. Paulinus a St. Bartholomeo in his `India Orientalis Christiana’ on pages 78-79 says, "Eum (Angelum) nec Archiepiscopus Goanus, nec Episcopus Cochinensis Petrus Paceco jurispatronatus Lusitani accerrimi et tenacissimi defensores consecrare volebant."

30 Of all this Portuguese Padroado schism is also diffusely recorded in the history of the Catholic Religion in Malabar edited in Malayalam at Cunamau 1872 by Monsignor Marcellin C.D. afterwards Coadjutor Bishop of Verapoly (Vide that work pp. 278- 298. See also the collections of the printed petitions forwarded in 1890 to Rome by the Catholic union of Madras &c.)

31 We reproduce here the above sketch on the Supremacy of the Roman pontiffs from "Catholic Belief" edited London 1884, by the very Rev. Joseph Fàà di Bruno D.D. Rector-General of the Pius Society of Missions. (Vide ‘Catholic Belief’ Chapter 27. pp. 108- 123).

32 That St. Peter was in Rome as First Bishop, see Part III. of this book, (Catholic Belief) No. 1.

33 The acts (Part II. C. 28) of the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea I. in 325 A.D. show that a certain John represented himself to the Council and subscribed in the Symbol of the Faith as Episcopus Magnae Indiae et Persidis. This fact is recorded by Labeus in his history of "Sacrosancta Concilia" edited Venice, 1728, Tom II. lib. 2. cap. 27. col. 235. See also Giamil’s ‘Genuinae Relationes,’ p. 578.

34 Though these words are not found in the Greek Exemplars now extant of the Acts of the Council of Nicaea, there is no doubt that they did exist, at least in some copies of those Acts at the time of the Chalcedonian Council (451), for in the Acts of the 16th Session of this Council it is stated that the Roman Legate, the Bishop Paschasinus, read before that general Assembly the VI. Canon of the Council of Nicaea, beginning with these words, "The Roman See always had the Primacy."

It cannot be reasonably supposed that Pope St. Leo the Great would have entrusted forged exemplars to his Legates, or that Bishop Paschasinus would have dared to read a forged copy of the Acts of the Nicene Council before such an assembly over which he presided; nor could he have done so without provoking some contradiction on the part of the Fathers. Great ecclesiastical historians and theologians agree in stating that when the Roman Legate Paschasinus read the said passage, no one contradicted. See Labbe Act I., Col. 93, tom. IV. Bellarmine de Rom. Pontif., Book II., Chap. 13. Hefele in his recent Concilien Geschichte, Vol. I., page 384. Cardinal Orsi Eccles. History, Book XXXIII., No. 79.

Two writers have lately ventured to state that the Fathers of the Council of the Chalcedon repudiated the assertion of Paschasinus respecting the Primacy of the Roman See; one of the writers+ did so without producing any authority, the other Dr. Littledale, grounded himself wrongfully on Fleury; I say wrongfully, because the reference given by him does not even allude to the matter in question, and where Monsignor Claude Fleury gives an account of this transaction of the Council of Chalcedon he asserts quite the contrary. These are his words : "Paschasinus read the VI. Canon of Nicaea beginning with these words: the Church of Rome always had the Primacy, which are not in the Greek, and notwithstanding in this particular no objection was raised." Ecclesiastical History of Monsignor Claude Fleury, Vol. IV., Book 28, No. XXX. Many other accusations of this writer against this Roman Catholic Church have been proved untrue by the Rev. H. Ryder of the Oratory in his book entitled ‘Catholic Controversy,’ a reply to ‘Plain Reasons’ of Dr. Richard Littledale. Instead of bringing false accusations against the poor author of ‘Catholic Belief,’ he had better try to oppose to it a simple exposition of the faith of the Anglican State Church.

35 H.E. James Cardinal Gibbons Archbishop of Baltimore in his 53rd. edition of ‘The Faith of Our Fathers’, London 1900, on the Supremacy of the Popes, pp. 134-136, says:- "Let me give you a few illustrations:

Theodoret, the illustrious historian and Bishop of Cyrrhus, is condemned by the pseudo-council of Ephesus in 449, and appeals to Pope Leo in the following touching language: "I await the decision of your Apostolic See, and I supplicate your Holiness to succour me, who invoke your righteous and just tribunal; and to order me to hasten to you, and to explain to you my teaching, which follows the steps of the Apostles.... I beseech you not to scorn my application. Do not slight my gray hairs.... Above all, I entreat you to teach me whether to put up with this unjust deposition or not; for, I await your sentence. If you bid me rest in what has been determined against me, I will rest, and will trouble no man more. I will look for the righteous judgment of our God and Saviour. To me, as Almighty God is my Judge, honour and glory are no object, but only the scandal that has been caused; for many of the simpler sort, especially those whom I have rescued from diverse heresis, considering the See which has condemned me, suspect that perhaps I really am a heretic, being incapable themselves of distinguishing accuracy of doctrine. (2)

36 See Butler’s Lives of the Saints, Notes on May 26 and December 31.

37 Cardinal Gibbons in ‘The Faith of our Fathers’ (pp. 139-140) says:- "4. I shall refer to one more historical point in support of the Pope’s jurisdiction over the whole Church. It is a most remarkable fact that every nation hitherto converted from Paganism to Christianity, since the days of the Apostles, has received the light of faith from missionaries who were either especially commissioned by the See of Rome, or sent by Bishops in open communion with that See. This historical fact admits of no exception. Let me particularize:

38 Thou art Peter &c. As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ, so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which He is pleased to raise him: viz., that he, to whom He had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock (St. John i. 42), should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the Church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Upon this rock, &c. The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar (Syro-Chaldaic) language of the Jews, which our Lord made use of, were the same as if He had said in English: Thou art a rock (Kepa), and upon this rock I will build my Church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock upon which the Church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building His house, that is, His Church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder (St. Matthew vii. 24, 25). The gates of hell, &c. That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself or his agents. For as the Church is here likened to a house or fortress, built on a rock, so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, i.e., the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the City or Church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever, shall at any time prevail over the Church of Christ.’ - Foot-note in Douay Bible on these passages.

39 Though I do not fully agree with the opinion of the correspondent of the ‘Watchman’ I beg leave to defer from this inference of the Reader, on account of the fact that Syriac has never been an influential or prevailing language of India as had been Greek in Rome and Alexandria &c. For it should be remembered that, in those places Greek was the literary and scientific language of the schools.

Publisher.

40 The assertion could at best prove that India was under the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical territory or province of Persia, which may be from a deficit of the Indian prelates after the Apostolic age: but that the liturgy of India was in Syriac is not a necessary sequel.            P.

41 When speaking of a local liturgical language it does not mean an independent or separate Church, but there is only question of a separate Rite. P.

  Book 1| Book 2 | Book 3| Book 4