The Elk advocate. [volume] (Ridgway, Elk Co., Pa.) 186?-1868, 1867-01-03
Correspondence Of the 0ebccate.
-----y---
Letters to ECGngeEiSt.
NUMBER THREE.

CT :-lu replying W youl Cuu les,
which have led to this correspondence, c,
nothing was farther from my intentions
and wishes than to engage in a polemic
discussion. Besides being foreign to
my profession, I do not consider the sec.
ular press as exactly the proper vehicle
through which to discuss religious ques
tions. Believing, however, that you re.
ally desired enlightenment on the sub
iect to which you referred, consider
it to be the duty of some one to afforl
you a brief exposition of the proofs of
the question. The fulflmeut of this
duty undertook, although fully aware
that many others might do it more ably,
and more credtably to themselves and
to the doctrines they advocated. |
presumed that after having read what |
wrote to you, you would endeavor to
find still other sources than those to
which l referred you, and to discover,
if possible, still further proofs if any
existed. In this l have been mistaken.
You have seen fit to deny everything |
have advanced, but in your seven let
ters to me you have not disproved one
single argument of mine. You have
denied them it is true, you have told
me that you do not believe them, and
you have given me your Interpretation
of the texts of scripture which l pro-
duced, but further than this you have
done nothing. TO the superficial mind
your letters read we'll, but to the think
er they are painfully barren of proof.
Moreover, l Iregret to say that you have
seriously mistaken my meaning on sew
eral important points to which will
refer in the course of my answer. With
regard to your demand for scriptural
proofs aud your indispositiou to accept
any others, 1 would remind you that
your views and mine regarding the sa
cred scriptures are widely different.
You, | presume, regard them as arule
of faith and you are willing to accept
no testimony except that of the bible.
1, while reverencing, the sacred writ
ings equally with you, by no means re.
gard them in the same light. | do not
believe they were ever intended as rule
of faith, although the result OF revela,
ton. Had they been so intended, the
poor christians who lived during the fiji.
teen centuries before the discovering
OF the art Of printing, would have been
sadly deficient in religious knowledge.
Had our Savior intended that His teach
ings should reach the people Of the
whole world through the oerttingS of the
Apostles, He, certainly, would have pro,
vided some method for their universal
dissemination The patient, toilng
monks of what many love to call the
durh ages, (but which really presented
the brightest examples of love of rcli.
gion and Of lcarning) who preserved
the bible for us and for yOu, could nev
er have supplied the people with man
uscript copies, while the millions, at
the present time. unable to read would
live, | fancy, in the darkest of dark ages
were the bible the only rule of faith
We differ also upon another point. You
believe in the right of private interprc
tation of the scriptures. Catholics dc
not. We consider tho sacred writings
far too sublime to be readily compre
hended by minds to whom an ordinary
political article is often mystery, mucl
J more SO Il treatise on philosophy or mu
tual science, and shall we presume tina
the Word Of God is more easily under
stood than the perishabie works of man
We consider it to be far too holy to b,
; twisted and turned aud made to suit ev
cry whim which the human mind ma,
conceive. High or low, learned or un
lettered, the Catholic accepts the inter
pretation which the church puts upor
/ the bible. Therefore, it was not m
private opinion that | gave you when
interpreted the scripture | quoted
but the opinion of the church of whicI
| am member. Those Interpretation
; | believe to be true; if you do not,
were useless for me to advance NOR
which would only meet the same fate
The proofs in my second letter you pas
over with what seems very much like
l. sneer on "the writings of the father
: and the tombstones of martyrs" but re
member that although a witty remar
may provoke the mirth of the silly
r does not overturn arguments aud proofs
In my first letter | gave you the doc
! trine OF the church in regard to the pc
: sition held by the Blessed Virgin Mary
= = l said that Mary was peculiarly tn
r Queen Of Mercy and that to her doe
not belong the attribute of justice.
Almighty God, being omnipoten
omniscient and omnipresent, possessC
all the attributes of goodness, knowlede
: and power. Among these are the a
! tributes of Justice and of Mercy H
: can either satisfy justice by condemnin
: the sinner TO everlasting torments or Fl
: can exercise his attribute of Mercy b
! ! pardoning him and admitting him int
the company of the blessed. Mar,
being a creature, has no pardoning pow
er, neither has she the power to COZ