The citizen. (Frederick City, Md.) 1895-1923, 1896-03-06
THE .CHUeCH OF ENGLAND.

The above was replied to by Father
O'Rourke in the following language:
One thing at time. Let us stick to the
main question 1t is impossible to go over
in your columns the whole field of Catholic
controversy. Purgatory, the Sacrifice OF
the Mass, ecclesiastical scandals, &c, have
nothing to do directly with the question at
issue Let us come, in parliamentary Ian
guage, to the previous question.
/ said that if the Pope had power to
grant divorce, the existence of the Church
of England would never have been fact of
history. Mr.. Ingle replies that the exis-
tence of the Church of England long ante
dates the Pope's refusal to soothe Henry IS
troubled conscience; for, three hundred
years before, the Magma Charta guarantees
the liberties of the Church of England.
Now it seems to me that this is mere mis-
cradle quibbling. We are not contending
about name, but about reality. Does
the Church of England mean the same or
ganization in the Magma Charta, which it
means nowadays? If it does not, then Mr..
Ingle's denial is worthless.
When Rip Van Wrinkle returned to the
village, after his long repose, in fit of daz-
ed enthusiasm he shouted out "Hurrah FOR
George the Thirdr' But men looked at
It'll tuu Ohly piOotOiJ hOPI
them from mobbing him. Why? Was it
not the same village? Was it not America?
Were not these people Yankees? Were
they not still the people of America some
of whom he had known before his venture
some expedition? They were another peo-
pie; the name may have been the same,
but the principle of authority had been
changed and therefore a new nation had
come into being. 1t is very much the same
with the Church of England. That church
which we designate now when we speak of
it, may be better or it may be worse than
the Church of England (his has nothing to
do with the question: spoken of in the
Magma Charta but it is not certainly the
same. 1t received it's foundation from
Henry the VIII, and whether he was espec-
tally inspired by God to do so, or urged to
do so by the fair maid of honor to her Ma
jesty, the Queen, is another question en-
tirely
hope that Mr.. Ingle will let the abuses
of Romanism alone, and confine himself
strictly to the original question. Is it true
that Henry as King, before the divorce,
professed himself devoted son of the Pope;
that he applied to him, as ecclesiastical SUI
perior, to free him from his marriage
bonds? Is it true that the Church of Eng
land, before the refusal of the divorce, was
united with the Church of Rome, acknowl-
edging the Bishop of Rome as the chief
pastor of the faithful? Is it true that then
the Church of England meant the Church
in England, subject to the spiritual author
ity of the Bishop of Rome, accepting the
teachings and sacraments of the Roman
Church? On the other hand is it true that
since the refusal of the divorce, the Church
of England means a church separated from
Rome, denying papal supremacy and refus
ing to accept the authority of Rome's Bish-
OPP? If this be granted, and Mr.. Ingle
seems to grant it, how can it be affirmed
that the Church of England existed before
Henry's escapade?
Let us have no quibbling. Even if the
New Testament is silent about papal SUI
premacy even if the Church of England
had abundant reasons for rejecting the pa
pacy on account of false doctrines and I'M
lawful authority, even if she stands upon
the foundation of the Apostles, &C., &C.,
common sense will not permit us to be-
lieve that the Church of England establish
ed by Henry under royal supremacy, is
identical with the Church of England,
when sued at Clements feet for the hand
of the fair Anne.
Let Mr.. Ingle answer this question first
before we proceed further. Everything else
in his letter is entirely irrelevant and
would only lead into endless and fruitless
controversy over arid wastes, without spir-
itual food or drink.
Yours, &C.,
JOHN HI. O'RoURKE, S. j.