CENTER-SHOTS AT ROME
(2 Thess. 2:3,4.)
Roman Catholicism is supposed, by its adherents, to rest upon two stones — apostolic succession and the infallibility of the pope. But I propose, this evening, to prove two things: (1) That the so-called apostolic succession is nothing but mud — and very thin mud at that; and (2) that the so-called Papal infallibility is nothing but slush — and very dirty slush at that. [Applause.]
Roman Catholicism teaches that the apostle Peter was the first pope, and that an unbroken line of succession can be traced from him down to the present incumbent. I'm a poor man, and need all the loose change I can get my hands on; but if any man — layman, priest, bishop, cardinal, or pope — will prove to the satisfaction of an unbiased jury that Peter was ever in Rome, I'll take a mil-
[pg. 31] lion dollars out of my vest-pocket and hand it over to him [Applause.]
There are Catholics here to-night — plenty of them — as there were last Sunday night. I wish, therefore, to reiterate a statement previously made. I am not here to speak against Roman Catholic people, but against Roman Catholicism — the system. I have never had any trouble with Catholics, not even in Steubenville.* [Laughter.]
I wish to also to say to you Catholic people, and through you to your friends, that you are welcome to these meetings; I wish more of you would come. I would rather deliver this and the two succeeding lectures to a house packed
* A local priest was reported to have said that the second lecture of the series might be delivered, but the third would not; and to have added that the Catholics had driven Rutledge out of Steubenville, and they would drive him out of Columbus. Just before announcing his text, Mr. Rutledge referred to the report, and explained the he had never been in Steubenville.
[pg. 32] with Catholics than to the largest Protestant audience that could be assembled. However, I shall not take advantage of you. "Forewarned is forearmed." And I warn you that if your faith is brought here it will be in danger. If you are too prejudiced to look at these subjects impartially, or if, for any reason, you can not think, the arguments I shall present will be of no avail so far as you are concerned. But if you listen to this entire series of lectures, and can and will think in terms of Scripture, history, and logic, your eyes will be opened; and if you then stand by your convictions, you will, like Luther and thousands of other honest people, come out of Rome. However, you have not yet heard enough to be convinced, and I fancy you are saying to yourselves: "Mr. Rutledge, that million-dollar proposition of yours is a big bluff. If your pockets were turned inside out, it would be discovered that they do not contain a penny." [Laughter.] And your guess is correct. It so happens that I stand before you without one bill or coin in any of my pockets. But the dif-
[pg. 33] ference between Rome's situation and that of your speaker drives home the proposition under discussion. I know where I can lay my hand on a little money when I need it, whereas the Catholic Church can not lay her hand on one iota of reputable evidence that Peter was ever in the Imperial City. If the pockets of the New Testament and history be turned inside out, it will be discovered that they do not contain one single coin of proof that he ever stood within its gates. [Applause.] Scaliger, Salmasius, Spanheim, Adam Clarke, and numerous other eminent writers, deny that Peter ever saw the city of Rome.
In the second place, James was the ruling elder or bishop of the original church — not in Rome, but in Jerusalem. Paul was more prominent, as an apostle, than Peter. And John was the "disciple whom Jesus loved"; for some reason, he was nearer the Master than were his brethren. Therefore, why Peter, instead of James or Paul or John? Rome answers: "Did not Christ say to Peter, 'Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth
[pg. 34] shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven'?" Yes. But it doesn't prove that Peter was to be the Pope. For in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew it is recorded that Jesus addressed the same statement to all the disciples.
But Rome's chief proof-text is Matt. 16:18: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church."
Modern Roman Catholicism can say mass in Latin, but if it can translate and interpret Greek texts correctly, it doesn't do it. Every one who has a smattering of Greek knows that Jesus employed two words — Petros for Peter and petra for rock.
Romanism professes to be governed in its interpretation of Scripture "according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."
Now, let us see how truthful (?) the Catholic Church is and how loyally (?) she subscribes to the writings of "the Fathers."
Augustine, the learned and celebrated Bishop of Hippo, whose name is
[pg. 35] a household word among Catholics, handled Matt. 16:18 as follows: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock which thou hast confessed . . . saying, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my church."
And Hilary, another Catholic saint, whose day on the calendar is January 13, wrote: "This one foundation is immovable; that is, that one blessed rock of faith, confessed by the mouth of Peter, 'Thou art the Son of the Living God.' The building of the church is upon this rock of confession. This faith hath the keys of the kingdom of heaven; what this faith shall loose or bind is bound and loosed in heaven."
In the writings of these Fathers, Peter loses his identity. The Catholic Church of to-day should either interpret Matt. 16:18 correctly, or pull St. Augustine and St. Hillary down from their high pedestals and consign them to purgatory for having misinterpreted it. [Applause.]
Permit me, just here, to digress a
[pg. 36] little and make myself perfectly clear to the Catholic Church of Columbus. Various underhanded methods are being employed to prevent the progress of this course of lectures, the most diabolical being the veiled threat of the committee which sought to intimidate the officers of this church.
When I was a boy, I played and fought fair, and the rule of my boyhood days is and always be the rule of my adult life. I shall continue these lectures no matter what steps the opposition may take. And, so far as public opinion is concerned, I propose, right now, to place the situation upon a higher plane than the one on which the priests and Knights of Columbus have pitched it. I, therefore, hereby challenge the priesthood of Columbus to meet me in public discussion [applause] in Memorial Hall, this church, a Catholic church, or any other place that may be designated. I'm prepared, whenever the challenge is accepted, to deny either or all of the following averments of Roman Catholicism:
[pg. 37] That Peter was the first pope.
That apostolic succession can be sustained.
That the pope, when speaking ex cathedra, is infallible.
That the Roman Catholic Church is the church of Christ.
That the confessional of the Catholic Church should be permitted by law.
Catholic reporters, inform the priests to-morrow that my hat is in the ring, and tell them to either put up or shut up. [Applause.] I would rather meet a Catholic priest in debate before a Columbus audience than eat strawberries in January. [Applause.]
And now that the Columbus situation is adjusted, so far as this end is concerned, we will wander back into the past and see what we can find.
After disposing of Peter's case, the Roman Church proceeds to inform the world that Linus was the second pope.
In 1 Cor. 12:28 we read: "God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers." Don't forget the order — the apostles are
[pg. 38] first. It is admitted by both Protestants and Romanists that the apostle John lived a number of years after Peter's death. Yet Rome declares a fellow by the name of Linus was made pope while an apostle was living! If the Lord authorized Paul to write 1 Cor. 12:28, placing the apostles first in the church, then appointed Linus the second pope, John had a just grievance and could have bankrupted the whole business. [Applause.] Poor old John! Think of him bending the knee to Mr. Linus and imploring the forgiveness of his sins! Roman Catholicism teaches, and practices too, that when a Christian dies, a financial arrangement must be made by which his soul is to be gotten out of purgatory. There is no record of such a provision having been made for John, and we are left to conclude that the faithful old apostle — mysteriously forgotten — is still wondering when the pope will find time to present him with a transport to heaven! [Applause.]
And who was Linus? In 2 Tim. 4:21 the name, with some others, is
[pg. 39] mentioned in a greeting, but nowhere else in the New Testament is reference made to it. And, so far as history is concerned, he is an obscure character — so obscure that we know scarcely anything about him except his name. His reign as Peter's successor, like practically everything on which Romanism rests its claims, is purely traditional. And to make the situation more ridiculous still, while the Catholic Church now proclaims Linus the second pope, the early Fathers were divided on the subject. Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine say Linus was the second pope. But Tertullian, Rufinus, and Epiphanius declare that, when Peter died, Clement became the head of the church. Therefore, we must recognize a two-headed Papacy almost in the beginning!
But we will let this apostolic succession razzle-dazzle slide. Catholics can no more sustain it than they can weave a cord of wind or tie a knot in water.
As a matter of historic fact, there were no popes until early in the seventh century.
[pg. 40] During the first six centuries the seat of the church government was first in the local congregation, then in councils and bishoprics. In the fourth century Constantine conceived the idea of making the government of the church conform to that of the state. He was a man of action, and proceeded at once to load the clergy with wealth, honor, and dignity. It so happened that the clergy was composed of men who, like all other men, were very human. And, as was perfectly natural, their human propensities, like Pear's soap, floated on the surface; they were puffed up with pride and worldly ambitions, and fascinated by the smiles of temporary ease and pleasure.
A bishopric was permanently established in Rome, and whenever the office was vacant there was a wild disgraceful scramble for the place. Sometimes the election of a bishop was accompanied by bloodshed and general terror.
Boniface III. was made bishop in 605. He was ambitious like his predecessors, and by far more foxy. He
[pg. 41] applied to Phocas, Emperor of Constantinople, who had succeeded to the throne by assassinating he predecessor, and was one of the most immoral and fiendish tyrants the world has ever known. This profligate emperor, who had a secret grudge against the Bishop of Constantinople, proclaimed Boniface Universal Bishop and declared the church at Rome head over all other churches. If you wish to verify this statement, read Baronius and other Romish historians.
And so it turns out, according to history penned by Roman Catholics themselves, that "the man of sin . . . the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God" — predicted by Paul in our text — was revealed in the year 606 in the person of a political trickster and at the hands of a vile emperor, whose subjects, unable to endure his iniquities, beheaded him and dragged his body through the streets! This, ladies and gentlemen, was the
[pg. 42] beginning of popedom in full-fledged, gaudy, intolerant, tyrannical glory. Catholics claim that the Lord named the first pope. History proves that the devil manufactured the monster. [Applause.]
It has been announced that, with the exception of the first, these lectures would be loaded with rifle-balls. The gun, tonight is loaded with popes. And I shall now pull the trigger and shoot some of them out. But I would advise you to do some good dodging. For if one of these holy, infallible popes should happen to hit you, you would have to be fumigated. [Laughter.]
Boniface [III, 607 A.D.], the first legally plumed rooster of the Papal chicken-yard [laughter.], began at once to crow in lordly fashion over the universal church; and from then until now Roman Catholicism has persistently maintained that the pope is the logical ruler of the world. And when we read the lives of the popes we can not help exclaiming at the marvelous credulity of people who associate holiness and apostolic succession and infallibility with the Papal throne.
[pg. 43] Impartial history records and Catholic history admits that at times more than one man claimed to be the logical occupant of Peter's chair — affording the world, down to the end of time, the humor of a situation revealing two, and at one time three, popes, each with a tremendous following and claiming apostolic succession and infallibility!
Also, impartial history records and Catholic history admits that, notwithstanding Rome's strait-laced position regarding women, there was a time when two women governed the church. Marozia and Theodora — women so lewd that, were they in Columbus to-day, they would not be permitted to enter a respectable home — were the real popes. The recognized popes were their lovers, and they were the power behind the throne.
And there is another character to whom I shall call your attention. Romanism, in its Papal chronology, not knowing what else to do with her, records Joan as a fabulous pope. She is said to have worn man's raiment,
[pg. 44] deceived her subjects, and occupied Peter's chair about two and a half years.
Mr. Donnelly, a reputable ex-priest, says: "There is little doubt but that Emperor Louis II. received the imperial crown from the hands of Joan.
"What!" I hear you Catholic people exclaim. "Are you dishing out the evidence of ex-priests!"
I beg your pardon. If Donnelly is an objectionable witness, we will dismiss him.
Mr. Donnelly will leave the witness chair, and the clerk will strike out his evidence.
Now, I wonder what I'm to do. Le me think a moment. I have it!
Baronius! Baronius! Baronius! I'm delighted to see you. Please be seated. There are some friends in the audience who will object to you, if they possibly can; hence I shall have to ask you a few questions.
Where and when were you born?
"I was born in Naples, Oct. 30, 1538."
[pg. 45] What is your occupation?
Is your history universally accepted as authentic?
Were you very closely associated with the Vatican and the Papal throne?
Please tell us, in your own words, about your relations to the Vatican.
"I was first an ordinary priest, then father confessor to the pope, then cardinal, and finally Vatican librarian."
What! You were Vatican librarian?
Then you had access to all the Papal records?
"They were placed in my hand for safekeeping."
Were you ever a candidate for the Papacy?
"Yes. In 1605 the cardinals of Rome made me their candidate."
Were you elected?
"I had previously taken a political
[pg. 46] position that was antagonistic to the Spanish part of the church, and the cardinals from Spain secured my defeat."
Now, my Catholic friends, I have asked Cardinal Baronius these questions to convince you that he is a competent witness. He had charge of the Vatican library, was father confessor to the pope, came near to being pope himself, and died in the Catholic faith. Listen to his evidence: "Thus, according to the most authentic and unexceptional testimony, it is demonstrated that Pope Joan existed in the ninth century; that a women occupied the chair of Peter, was the vicar of Christ on earth, and proclaimed sovereign pontiff of Rome."
Do you demand another witness?
Du Pin! Du Pin! Du Pin! Come into court!
Take a seat sir. Before hearing your testimony it will be necessary to prove your character.
Bishop Purcell! Bishop Purcell! Bishop Purcell of Cincinnati, Ohio! Come into court!
Bishop Purcell, please quote to your
[pg. 47] Catholic brethren in this audience the testimony you volunteered concerning Du Pin in your celebrated debate with Alexander Campbell, held in Cincinnati in 1837.
"Du Pin was a learned man. I would even select him as a splendid illustration of strength imparted to the human intellect by the Catholic intellectual discipline."
Now, Mr. Du Pin. We will be glad to hear what you have to say about the woman Joan, who is said to have been pope.
"This pope, according to Platina's reckoning, which is accounted the truest, is John the Ninth, for John the Eighth, Pope Joan, of whom the Roman Church is so much ashamed that they leave her blotted out of the catalogue of their popes; for although they allow popes too many women, yet they will not endure to hear of a woman to be pope."
[Pope Joan is recorded in 1297 by a Polish Dominican historian as having succeeded Leo IV in 855, taking the name of John Anglicus, and reigned in Peter's chair 2 years, 7 months and 4 days.]
This is not my testimony. It is the testimony of renowned Roman Catholics. And I would suggest to the Catholics of Columbus that they drive Bishop Purcell,
[pg. 48] Cardinal Baronius and Du Pin out of Steubenville. [Laughter.]
But, after all has been said, the woman, Joan, notwithstanding the fact that the manner of her death* revealed the immoral life she had led, was, so far as intellect and outward deportment and justice concerned, a credit to the Papacy of her day. but I wish to add a question: if Joan be regarded as a fabulous pope, what became of apostolic succession during her two and a half years' occupancy of Peter's chair? [Applause.]
[*Pope Joan is said to have been publicly stoned to death after being discovered to be a women, when she suddenly gave birth during a procession from the Vatican to the Lateran palace. For more on the popes, including Pope Joan, refer to The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, by J.N.D. Kelly, which is available in most bookstores. Pope Joan will be found in the appendix, page 329. See also The Pope Encyclopedia, by Matthew Bunson, published by Crown Trade Paperbacks, another good resource on the papacy.]
It is hardly fair to your patience and sensibilities to drag this discussion through the filth of Papal history. But there is no other way. And it's next to impossible to go down into the pit of slime and come out with garments that smell sweet. However, I promise that, to-night and throughout the series, I shall strive to be as clean as it is possible for a man to be while handling a dirty thing. [Applause.]
The wicked woman Marozia had Pope John X. [914-928] cast into prison and put to death.
[pg. 49] Then she had her own son, John XI. [931-936] made pope. He was a weakling, and, throughout his pontificate, was subject to the baneful influences of his mother and brother.
John XII. [955-964] became pope in 956, when only eighteen years of age. Although Christ's vicar on earth, who sat in Peter's chair to speak ex cathedra, as the voice of God, and forgive the people's sins, this youth was so wild that had he lived to-day in Columbus — lax as are our laws — he would have spent most of his time in jail. When King Otho heard that John was running with the dissipated young men of the city and sowing a good-sized crop of "wild oats," he remarked: "Oh, well, the pope is young yet, and he may grow better as he grows older." [Laughter.] The time came, however, when Otho had to show his hand; the Papal disgrace could no longer be endured by even an emperor in the tenth century. The pope was indicted on the charge of incest, perjury, blasphemy, and murder. But he jumped his bail and fled, taking with him the treasure of the
[pg. 50] church. Leo VIII. [964-965] was made pope in his stead. But Leo's reign was short, if not sweet. John organized his forces, returned to Rome, pulled Leo out of Peter's chair, and had himself made pope again; then continued his prodigal life on still a larger scale. His career ended very suddenly one day, when a married man is said to have returned home unexpectedly and killed the pope — and I don't blame him for having done it. [Applause.]
Benedict IX. [1032-44; 1045; 1047-8] was also made pope at the age of eighteen. He was even worse that John XII. And, losing patience with their pope, the citizens of Rome rose up in their indignation and drove him from the city — not once, but twice. But, through the emperor, Conrad, he managed to return and continue his life of sin while forgiving other people's sins and getting them out of purgatory. And finally, young-man-like, he decided to be a sure enough benedict and proposed marriage to his cousin. The fat was in the fire. This was the last straw that broke the camel's back.
[pg. 51] The pope was a blasphemer and a lecher, and his people learned to endure his vile life. But when he let it be known that he thought of committing the unpardonable sin of matrimony, their patience snapped. His dream of a wife and a happy home thew the entire situation into confusion and resulted in a three-headed Papacy — Benedict IX., Sylvester III.  and Gregory VI. [1045-1046] all claiming to be pope at the same time. As Peter's chair was built for only one pope at a time, I'm surprised that the weight of three pope's didn't squash it beyond repair. [Laughter.]
[Benedict IX sold his papal office to Gregory VI, his godfather, and stepped down from Peter's chair, only to soon regret the act and reclaim his office.]
Pius II. [1458-1464] led a vile life, and excused himself for doing so by saying David and Solomon had been guilty of the same.
Innocent VIII. [1484-1492] married his own son in the palace, and presented the bridal couple with ten thousand ducats. And when his granddaughter was married, he had grown still more bold, and brazenly celebrated her marriage in the Vatican itself.
Alexander VI. [1492-1503] decided that he would
[pg. 52] like to sit in Peter's chair for a while, and hit upon a plan that worked like a charm. He bought and paid for it — cash down. He was bold enough to acknowledge the paternity of a son after he became pope, and likewise made his own daughter [Lucrezia] his private secretary. [Alexander VI had numerous children, four children by one mistress, and made his second son by her, Cesare, a bishop and then cardinal at the age of 18.]
Julius II. [1503-1513] has accredited to him all the sins of his predecessors, and another — one that can not be mentioned in public. [Julius II was the patron of Michelangelo, and fathered 3 children while a cardinal.]
Leo X. [1513-1521] might be called the fasting pope. Poor fellow! it's a wonder he didn't starve to death. He spent only eight thousand ducats ($18,400) per month on his table! [For his inauguration festival Leo spent 100,000 ducats, 1/7th of the treasury that Julius left. Leo X also issued the papal bull Exsurge Domine condemning Martin Luther.]
Stephen VII. [928-931] was in class all by himself. He was a high-tempered man, and one day decided to have some fun extraordinary. He had the body of his predecessor, Formosus, exhumed and tried for heresy. The dead pope was condemned, his fingers were cut off, and he was thrown into the Tiber. It was a big joke the live pope played on the dead pope. But unfortunately, the dead pope didn't see the point. [Laughter.]
[Stephen VII was soon deposed by supporters of Formosus and strangled to death.]
[pg. 53] "But you are telling lies. You can't prove those things," some of you are saying — just as you were overheard to say, in several parts of the building, last Sunday night.
Do you think I am bereft of my senses? I know that every word I utter is taken down stenographically, and faithfully reported to Roman headquarters. And I'm not idiotic enough to just start my mouth off and let it run wild. For every specific charge I shall prefer against Romanism, throughout this series of lectures, I have the evidence. And if you demand sources of information, I shall not hesitate to tell you that the things I've stated concerning these infamous popes are recorded in the histories written by Baronius, Du Pin, Alzog and Pastor — all Catholics who, as historians, had to sacrifice the reputation of their church upon the altar of accuracy. I would have gone outside, among the heathen, for evidence. But I preferred to keep it all in the family; hence I've given you Romanism's testimony against itself. [Applause.]
[pg. 54] And what I've told you isn't a drop in the ocean. If you wade through Papal history, your discoveries will cause you to rub your eyes and think you are dreaming. You will find that John XIII. [965-972] was strangled in prison; that Boniface VII. [974; 984-985] imprisoned Benedict VII. [974-983] and starved him to death; that the corpse was dragged through the city; and that John XVI. [997-998] was seized by an infuriated public, his eyes were put out, his nose was cut off, his tongue was torn out from his mouth, and he was then tied to an ass — his head tailward — and forced to ride through the streets. Quite a gala day for an infallible pope. [Laughter.]
You will discover that a surprising number of popes have been guilty of all the crimes in the category. And, furthermore, you will discover that even Catholic historians discuss these profligate popes in terms that I would not dare employ before an audience, for the reason that certain things which can not be uttered in public discourse can be written in books.
[pg. 55] In his debate with Mr. Campbell, Bishop Purcell admitted the indescribable vileness of many popes, and publicly said he would not be surprised if they were in hell. I would advise Columbus Catholics to dig up Bishop Purcell and drive him out of Steubenville. [Applause.]
If apostolic succession can be traced back through this filthy conglomeration of fiendish men and women, I can make huckleberry pie out of dead flies. [Laughter.]
And if it can be proved that the popes have been holy and infallible men, I can prove that a colored women, dressed up in white, is a fly in a pitcher of buttermilk. [Laughter.]
The pope is no more infallible — ex cathedra or otherwise — and the vicar of Christ on earth than he's a poached egg on toast in Kalamazoo. [Laughter.]
The history of the Vatican, admitted by both Protestants and Catholics who have examined it, reeks with hypocrisy, drunkenness, immorality, blasphemy, murder, intrigue, and all grades of evil,
[pg. 56] as does the history of no other institution known to man. And since so many who have occupied Peter's chair have been, according to reputable Roman historians themselves, devils incarnate, it is reasonable to suppose, in the language of Sheba's queen after she looked upon Solomon's glory, that "the half has never been told." All the vile deeds of infamous men do not get into history. If the old Vatican could open its mouth and speak of the licentious banquets and secret conferences that have given birth to widespread outrage and all the decomposed fruit that has been shaken down from the evil tree within its walls, it could tell tales that would make the hair curl on a bald head. [Laughter.]
My Catholic friends, I know you think I'm the most wicked man in Columbus. Nor do I blame you. Were I in your places, I would think so too. Taught as you have been, the things I say are blasphemy in your ears. But I'll guarantee that, if you exercise the prerogative of free men and women and post yourselves, you will change your
[pg. 57] minds. Doubtless you now think I ought to be driven out of Columbus. But if you will post yourselves by reading your own histories, you will verify every assertion I have made, and admit that I ought not to have been driven out of Steubenville. [Laughter.] If, instead of depending on what your priests tell you and the literature they recommend, you will read the history of your church, then read the New Testament, the doctrines of apostolic succession and Papal infallibility will snap before the winds of your reason like reeds in the path of a cyclone. I especially recommend Alzog's "Manual of Universal Church History and Pastor's "Lives of the Popes." These are Catholic authors, and I know you will agree that when I ask you to consult them I'm proceeding on the square and in nowise trying to take advantage of you.
We live in an age of light — Bible light, historic light, scientific light. And it is the privilege of all to come out of the darkness of tradition, superstition and prejudice and dwell in the light.
[pg. 58] Protestantism isn't yet what it ought to be, by a long shot. And in the seventh lecture of this series I shall apply the blade of truth to Protestantism and cause it to cut right and left. You Catholics are hereby invited to hear that lecture. "There'll be a hot time in the old town" that night! [Applause.] And if the Protestants take it into their heads to run me out of Columbus, I'll go back to Steubenville. [Laughter.]
"We are living, we are dwelling,
In a grand and awful time,
In an age on ages telling;
To be living is sublime."
The world is advancing. The light is kissing the hilltops, and the darkness is fleeing. The "man of sin" has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. The handwriting on the wall declares that the Vatican is doomed. Romanism has become top-heavy in the old countries; its traditions and superstitions and image-worship and opposition to general progress have failed to elevate the nations it has dominated. And, as I shall prove in the last lecture, it is
[pg. 59] preparing to wage its greatest and last battle in America. Protestantism is now in a state of transition, out of which it will pass into union, eternal vigilance, determination and solidarity of effort, and our children will fight the battle royal! The light will conquer. Roman Catholicism will become a memory, and the doctrine of apostolic succession and Papal infallibility will be regarded as ancient theological freaks. And when truth prevails over error, Christ, the Heaven-ordained and only Head of the church, will step forth in all his regal splendor. Then the world will bring forth its royal diadem and crown him King of kings and Lord of lords! [Applause.]
Return to the INDEX
Continue on to 3. The Priesthood.