The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1875-11-28

M %ss.s Ge. deep
over well.worn hands-O beautiful sleep!
THE INFALLIBLE CHURCH.
BETWEEN CARDINAL MANNING
AND LORD REDEsDALE.
London Tablet
The following additional correspondence has
s,een publshed in the London Daily Telegraph,
3lnce our last:
Sr,-In reply to Cardinal Manning, 1 deny
'that in my letter I either begged the question
Between us changed it. He states it to be
sis il heresy to appeal from q Divine author
.ityf and that have to show that the authority
OF the Church is not Divine" By the Church
he means tt Q Church of Rome and did show
land believe successfully, that the authority
sof that Church In refusing the cup to the laity
Twas not Divine. hold the authority of Christ
Ito be Divine, and that it is heresy to appeal
from it. So far l agree with the first pro
position of the Cardinal. say that the
fChurch of Rome appeals from that authority
In refusing to give The communion in both
kinds, and in doing SO is heretical, and her
shortly not Divine. hold, therefore, that the
slawfulness of conn union in one kind is strict
I ly in point, and it was, moreover, the point
distinctly raised by me in my first letter, in
which I accepted the Cardinals challenge,
which he replied to, and he has no right to
shirk it and say that it is Irrelevant. Ibelleve
that he feels himself beaten, and wants to
make the best retreat he can. The proof of a
single error is fatal to the claim of infall-
sbility.
The Cardinal may be weary of our cores
pondence but believe that your readers are
not. He has made admissions which are true,
Important, and awkward to him-tEat the
Apostles administered the communion in both
Intention and order. Does he deny the author
1 ity of the Church of the Apostles to have been
Divinei If IL was, the Church of Rome in ap.
pealing from it is, on his own showing, guilty
rno nd hara Hn o6 ifs hat fhn
doctrine of communion in both kinds is not in
trinsically erroneous, but has become treason
and heresy, because Rome has 30 ruled. Trea
son and heresy are criminal and sinful, and
thus the Cardinal admits that the claim of the
Church of his adoption to ipfalibility has been
exercised TO create new crime and sin to
which poor mankind was not before su bject
and which was not SO in the sight of God, but
which suppose he holds that God must now
recognize to be so at the dictation of Rome.
This is a claim to an authority superior to Di-
vine. am, Sir, your obedieDt servant,
REDEsDALE.
Batsford Park, Oct "a.
Sir-Lord Redesdale is q little too confident
of victory. He has not yet put off his harness
His letter of to day contains some matters
which, believe, on reflection he will think as
Edo. to be irrelevant, I will, therefore, still
oonfine myself to our Argument. Neither Lord
Redesdaie, nor any man, can show that the au-
thority of the Roman Church is not Divine be-
cause il .'refuses the Cup to the laity"-I am
shown that the obligation to receive Commu-
pion in both kinds is, by Divine command
meut, imposed on all Christians.
This he has not done.
It is not enough to quote the words of HOLY
Scripture until he as proved that he uses Aem
in their true sense. Holy Scripture is Scri ptnre
will only SO long as it is rightly interpreted.
~ deny Lord RedesdAles Interpretation, and
he has not proved it to be the true one. Bnt
! he has once again begged the question. SIS
INT arrATn n inv io e IL
Scripture Z" Till he has proved this he has
done nothing.
In my first letter l pointed ont that the
words of institution of the Holy Sacrament
were addressed not to all Christians, but to the
Apostles. They, like the command to baptize
and to absoiTe, are commandment to the
Apostles. They commanded the Apostles TO
ponsecrate and to receive the most Holy Sac
lament in both kinds. They do not command
All Christians to communicate in both kinds
any more than they command all Christians to
esdAle affirm this latter proposition If Lord
Hedesdale says that the Commandment to con-
seecrate the Holy Sacrament is given to all
christians need make no farther reply.
may leave the controversy in the hands of
most OF the Bishops and most of the clergy of
the Anglican Church. They will answer him.
ne must choose one of two things: The COM
mandment is either universal or not universal.
II he says il is universal as to Communion he
must show how it is not also universal as to
sConsecration. If he say it is not universal as
,OOhocSFdIion ne must snow Ln8C OF which
PC has not shown the shadow of proof, name
munion. ~
:, reject Lord Redesdale's Interpretation of
scripture and in quoting this text he is sim
ply begging the question. "Is this the true
sense of Scripture 4
=, Finally, LS-d Redesdale says, ~ hold the au-
monty of Christ to be Divine, and that it is
,nSe I to appeal from it. So far / agree with
have nowhere said nything SO needless.
sad " the authority of the Church is Divinep
Ano that proposition Lord Redesdale cannot
qqlsprove except by refuting its proper evidenced
ne does not advance his argument q single
point by reiteratipg the quotations from
scripture about Communion. The Sacramen.
ttSStlans would quote againt Lord Redesdale
tGe same words that he quotes against me, and
G MSGid tell him that they "the authority of
St to prove that the Bread and Wine are
merely figures.
h.. as ;. said in my last letter, Lord Redesdale
t Tas 70 snow one of two things-"either that
T T3s .SShnrch is not guided by the Spirit of
NJ T-1;,. or that the Church guided by the Spirit
a 4. !, atrmed its authority to be Divine be-
fhot y. y is guided by the Spirit of Truth and
buhb1 IOE tla6 same sks