The morning star and Catholic messenger., 1875-12-12
INTERESTING LETTER FROA ENGLAND
London correspondence n. Y. Catholic RevieWl
THE PEER AND THE CARDINAL.

THE PEER AND THE CARDINAL.
TIE correspopdence between Cardinal
Manning and Lord Redesdale. conductea
through the columns ofthe Ddiiy Iete9rePh,
has pow closed; the Cardinal havin g tne
last word. The correspondence exSNeu
the keenest interest literally bnsheis OF
letters concerning it were received oy tne
Daily Telegraph and one good result OF
it, no doubt, is this-that vast numner
of people, who never heard C.'nonc
sermon nor read Catholic book ID their
| lives, have been compelled to listen to Cath |
olic truth. AS for the merits OF the contro'
versy itself-well, there really was no con- [
| troyersy the discussion was all on one sioe. |
| Lord Redesdale-a well meaning g out weak
man-uudertook to chow that the Cathoiic
Church had erred in matters OF 1alth ne
took for instance the decree OF the Councli
of Trent concerning "Communlons In one
kind :" and he declared that this was "a
mutilated sacrament" and a half sacra
ment.n How easily the Cardinal disposed
of this assertion need not recount. But
ges from the Cardinals concluding leG.er
"Let us, however, now sum up. Lord
Rsdesdale's whole argument consists IN
this. He says the Church has erred: 10
prove this he quotes a text, and ne lnter
prets the text of Scripture in a sense at
variance with the interpretations held by
the whole Church, Greek and Latin, East
and West: and confirmed, as 1 have
shown, BY the traceable practice OF the
Church running up to the second century,
aud sanctioned by the Judgment ana ex
annie of the greatest names Of the Christian
world.
"The immemorial practice of Commu-
, nion ia one kind is not to be disposed OF by
talking of persecution, or OF 'exccptional
cases Its antiquity and widespread use
prove beyond contention two things
{ Firstly, that the words of our Lord In IN
lot; COQveTGQ
Divine commandment imposing upon the
! faithful to receive in both kinds; and,
3 secondly, that, to the full Integrity OF
: Communion, it was held to be absolutely
Q indiffe,e ent whether Communion was TO
q ceived in both kinds or in one alone. a
. .smutiIated Sacramept"-as Lord Redesdaie
b. called it-would be sacrilege, both in the
a giver and receiver. Were the early CHRIS
q tiaus in the East and West habituaily sac
Q rilegious7 Did st. Ambrose on his destt
bed receive a 'mutilated Sacrament Die
he make a sacrilegious Communion before
appearing in the presence of hls LORD
q Would. he have listened to Lord Redesdai'
J. if he had stood by his dying bed to lncul
Q cate the doctrine contained in his letters
81 We must believe either Lord Redesdale o
% St. Ambrose; and am content to leav'
u this issue to the judgment of common
It sense, to which Lord Redesdale has aP
: pealed.
e "Ihave said from the beginning that tn
= of the question.
); 'Not one hair breadth beyond this ha
10 Lord Redesdale advanced his argument.
RS "Lord Redesdale can claim for his iu
"a depreciation of the words of Scripture n
se higher certainty and no higher authorlt
OF than his own, and the authority of those
~ be they few or many, Who proceed as b
E does, on the same principle of private oplL
.o ion. The certainty and authority npc
~ which rely for the Interpretation that
~ have given, is the authority of the Cathol
at Church, which, as proved IN the close
al nv last letter by the full and plain wore
oe of Our Lord Himself, is preserved aiwaI
at from error in faith by the perpetual presen'
nd and assistance of the Spirit OF Truth. III
~ was my original thesis; and against tn
or not one relevant argument has hither
to been directed"
he THE CRUCIFIN ILLEGAL
rs, For nearly two years church bslongit
to to the establishment of which Qneen vi
sh toria is the head, situated in the town
to Denbigb, has been shut up, and for this c
To rious reason. pious lady OF tue neig
ais borhood, feeling grieved by the sad sta
OF of neglect the building had fallen INTO, u
!er dertook to repair and beautify 1t, and IN Il
i'm work spent about $22 900. One of her glt
I'd was handsome reredos behind what 8
ls supposed was an "altar,' but which Is on
on "table," and on this reredos is a carv
crucifx. But when the "bishop" came
cODSecrate the CDuTCn uo CElSu uuI Al IL
n ror at the sight of this emblem of our
I've demption, and demanded that it should
al removed. This demsad was resisted a
Sar the church was shut up until the cs
re. should be decided. 1t has now been decide
ing ana the oeeiston ls InaI C"e e.;iInrai =, n
ean words of this decision are that "the crc
% by itself, or the image of the Saviour by
in self. are legal but when joined VIII
90 the Saviour is extended on the cross, tt
nth is not mere ornamentation, but teaches
on distinctive doctrine; and this reredos
raI especially liable to lead to superstition a
,er. the alteration of an image, because thu
lin are figures underneath the cross in
l'n' adoring posture !" Oh! oh oh
adore the cross, and HIM who hangs uE
NJ. it, is superstitiOue, ia itR The NOR
way, dread which these evangelical Angles
nany have of the cruciix is amazing IL
are shrink from it just as did Mephistophe
I in from the cross-hiIted swords of Valent