New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1894-05-30
THE CATHALIC STANDPOINT
A Discourse by Mr.. sheran on the Trinity
Doctrine.

in the hope that my New Ulm friend
would have sufficient light thrown OF
those ve1ed questions, the treatment OF
which has filled 50 many :pages of the
Review and taxed, perhaps to the ut
most, the patience of its Editor and read
ers. 1 had hoped to establish IN his
mind the fact that the Catholic creed is
a changeless creed, that growth, so far as
it is concerned, is neither an historical
truth nor possibility. But he cannot
see It or he will not see it and inttwo
very interesting replies he has been care
tul to tell me so. Accordingly will
make one more effort: and if it fails,
shall have to exclaim with Cicero: Culpa
non est mea sed temporum.
And, first of all, would point out
some glaring inconsistencies which occur
in his replies. For this purpose I will
place two of his statements side by side
and draw an Inference; IL aimed to
point out how the church doctrines or at
least the main ones in their present form
have grown out of the NEUROLOGICAL
traditions.' Again he writes: "Mr.
Sheran once more makes an appeal to
ancient sepulchres, and from the aband-
oned ways of antiquity must come the
information which the living are unable
to supply" Now in all fairness I may
ask how such an historical thesis as your
correspondent lays down in the first sent
ence can be proven or disproven except
by an appeal to 1.-The abandoned ways OF
antiuuitv." Yet he condemns me for
doing Just what he has been doing right
along-citing the testimony of dead
witnesses. How could he establish that
Church crecds grow unless by an appeal
to history? And what is history in this
connection save the written testimony of
"dead authorities" Can the living sup
ply information regarding historical
events that happened two thansand years
ago! II we want any reliable informa-
ton, must we not appeal to the men
who lived at the time? This is precisely
what have done. To prove that the
Catholic creed cid not grow, that is was
ever changeless, went back to the time
when nv New Ulm friend claims it did
change-to the time of the Niccne, FL ,he-
sian and Carthag1nlan councils. At the
time of those councils (32O-3SO A. d.
he asserted that two new doctrines (the
Trinity Doctrine and the doctrine of
Original sin) were added to the Catholic
creed. Now the Church was in existince
some 300 years before these councils.
SO, in order to prove his statement false,
l had to show that, during those 300
years. the disputed doctrines of the Trim
ity and inherited sin were part and parcel
of the Catholic Faith. Accordingly I
cited Tertullian, Clement, Justin Cyprian,
Ignatius and others, men who lived dur
ing those 300 years, men who knew the
Church doctrines at that time. and men
whose written testimony has put the
seal of falsehood on my friends state
ments regarding ''the growth of the
Catholic creed. I did not quote these
men to prove that those doctrines we're
true. l did not quote them as having
greater spiritual insight or more religious
Information. [ summoned them to bear
witness to an historical fact. The ques-
ton was not whether those Church doc
trines were true 0! false. The question
wholly and exclusively was: Are they
growth?' The testimony of these men
proves that the doctrines in question
were not ''growth;" that they were
taught and believed at the very inception
of Christianity. Now my friend from
New Ulm, percieving that he could not
overthrow this testimony, undertook to
change the state of the question and rep
resents me as trying to prove the truth
or falsity of these Ldoctriues. But that
was not the point at issue. made no
attempt at proof except when he denied
the Scriptural foundation for the Trini-
ty. When I combatted his "growth''
theory SO tar as the Catholic Faith is
concerned I was dealingE Ewith a question
purely historical, a question which dead
not living witnesses had to decide.
Hence his remarks about my desire to
"overawe and paralyse the minds of the
living'' are simply in the air; and his
efforts to establish from history the
growth of creeds while at the same time
he denies or ridicules my right of appeal
to history for proof of the contrary, is,
as have shown. me st glariny in con-
sistencv His historical testimonv for