The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1875-11-21
THE INEALLIBLE CHURCH.


THE LNFALLIBLE CHURCH.
CONTROVERSY BETwEEN CARDINAL MANNING
AND LORD RRDESDALE.
.s [London Tablet, OCT. 80
The folio wing correspondence has appeared
in the London Daily Telegraph:
"Sir-In your paper of yesterday (9th) Car
dinal Manning gives the following as the cor.
rect extract from The Temporal Mission Of the
HoEy Ghost
She appeal to antiquity is both q treason
and q heresy. 1t is a treason because it re-
jectB the Divine voice of the Church at this
hour and heresy because it denies that voice
to be Divine And defends it by stating his
arguments to be as foilows: The appeal from
the living voice of the Church to any tribunal
whatsoever, human history included, is an act
of private judgment and a treason, because
that living voice is supreme ; and to appeal
from that supreme voice is also heresy, Pc
cause that voice, by Divine assistance, is infal-
lible.' He adds: i have seen much mlsrepre-
sentation of my argument, but 1 have never
seen an answer. Unless the premises can be
refuted no answer can be made
~ accept the challenge. The Church OF
Rome refuses the cup to the laity who come TO
her to receive the Sacrament OF Chrlst's BODY
and Blood. L desire the Cardinal to give, if he
can, prompt, separate, and explicit answers TO
the three following questions:
"First,, Is it treason and heresy to say that
history informs Us that when Christ instituted
that Holy Sacrament He ordained that His
blood was to be given and received through
the wine as we'll as His body through the
bread, and that all ought now to receive the
Sacrament in the manner He ordained3
SECOND, Is it treason and heresy to say that
antiquity informs us that in the time Of the
Apostles and long afterwards all who received
that Sacrament partook of the wine as we'll as
the bread, an6 that we ought all now to do as
'Third, When and how was the Church of
Rome Divinely instructed to order what is di-
rectly contrary to what Christ Himself or
dered when on earth by express words II am,
Sir your obedient servant, REDEsDALE.
"Buxton, October g."
"Sir-Lord Redesdale's courteous letter in
your paper of to-day is one more example in
proof of the statement that my critics suppress
my argument instead of answering it.
"'If the voice of the Church be, by Divine
assistance, infallible,' then to appeal from it,
to Whatsoever tribunal, 10 to reject Divine
authority. This is clearly both treason and
"What Lord Redesdale has to show is that the
voice of the Church is not, by Divine assistance,
infailible.'" This he has not done, nor attempt
ed to do. /, therefore, answer his questions as
follows
81. Our Lord ordained that the Holy Sacra-
ment should be consecrated and received by
His Apostles in both kinds, but He did not or
dain that it should be receive by all Christians
in bot b kinds.
centuries, ard is in use in some places at this
day. but not ID necessary obligation by Di-
vine commandment We therefore not all
bound te Communion IN DOT RlDnS-
$50. The Church was Divinely instructed in
all things relating to doctrine and discipline
by the advent of the Spirit of Truth on the day
Of Pentecost, who, according to the promise OF
Our Lord. abides for ever in the Church.
Lord Redesdale will find my proof of this
truth in the book he has quoted. Until he has
refuted this premise, which my critics have al
ways suppressed, he is only begging the ques-
ton once more. therefore affirm that, to say,
as he flbplies, that Communion in both kinds
is necessary to all is both treason and heresy ;
ut Do los ntrt y,atO l7r1
erroneous in itself, but because it is an asser-
ton made in contradiction to an authority
which is Divine. This point Lord Redesdale
has avoided; but it is the point of my srgu-
ment which he was bound to refute.-I remain
Sir, your faithful servant,
''HENRY EDWARD,
"Archbishop's House, October IS"
Sri thank Cardinal Manning for his reply
to my letter. He tells me that have to show
"that the voice of the Church is not, by Divine
assistance infallible." 1 undertake to show
that the voice of the Church of Rome, in re-
fusing the cup to the laity, is false. He says
that i" Our Lord ordained that the Holy Sacra-
ment should be c0nsecrated and received by
the Apostles in both kinds; but He did not
ordain that it should be received by all Christ
ians in both kinds" deny the last assertion
Christ, when teaching in the synagogue at
Capern aum, said to the Jews there assembled
Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no
life in You. Whose eateth My flesh and
drinketh Ny blood dwelleth in me, and in
him." These words were not addressed to the
Apostles only, but to the whole congregation.
The Jews strove among themselves, saying,
How can this man give us His iesh to eat 2
and many of His disciples said, This is an
hard saying: who can hear it :" All was made
clear at the Last Supper, when He gave the
bread to the disciples, saying, 'Dtinky e all of
1t, for this is my blood which is shed for many
TOT the remission of sns.'" Now the Apostles
did not consider that the sacrament was to be
received by them only in both kinds but by
all, as He had taught them. The Church of
Rome alone has presumed to reject His teach
ing and that of His Apostles; and the Cardinal
attrms that to say that communion in both
kinds is necessary TO all is both treason and
heresy, not because it is an assertion necessa-
rhXserroneous in ITSELF but because it is made
IN contradiction to that authority which is
Divine" He dares not to say that the order to
receive in both kinds is erroneous. defy him
to show that the henefts TO be recaiZad