New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-04-27
4 BISHOPS ANSWER ANALfZbD'
,,,,,>,cc s.1D AND LEFT UNsAID ABOUT
MASS AND AURICULAR CONFESSION

MASS AND AURICULAR CONf E0"i0''
To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir I noticed some time ago reply Vi o''e
.bo hebons TO your questions relative to tine doc-
'li' t go ne held by the advanced Catholic
nortv in the English Church. and auricuiar con-
fession either enforced or voluntary.
The reply II such 1t can be called was '"io"e"
out a pitiable begging OF the question. ,.,
Is he not guilty OF what logcians can Pe'I'o
nr,nc,nii when he complains that you ala not
itu,,,,o,o What Won understood as the doctrine OF
tho mass thus held? Your question had no refer
onca IN nersonal views either true or false had
YOU asked whether your understanding OF t"e SUI
iect was correct incorrect his demand "ouu
have been to the point This you did not uo' 'u'
us or Is not this doctrine Of the mass etc., III
nor-oonv with the teaching of the Episcopal
church," Why does he evade the issue at your
expense?
In the next complaint the same fallacy occurs
"Theologians are too often accused OF holding doc-
trnes which they do not hold for me TO De Willie
to EXPRESS an opinion" etc. Why this disclaimer!
uae he been so accused? Your question does not
even hint at such a thing. The Bishop cries out
before he is hurt. Why take the trouble 10 deny
charge that has not been brought against MIN II
awakens suspicion. His complaint that II Is dii-
Acult TO answer is unfair TO YOU because ne creates
the very difficulty complained Of This Is the more
annarent when he accuses you of making so gem
oral statement" What, in the Bishops 1uds-
ment is a particular statement? You specihed'
first the name of the doctrine held; second name
of PARTY holding the same and. third the place
where held. What more couiu any leasoh"O'e
man ask?
Let us turn TO the next complaint. He Is, IN
odd,on 70 the fault found with your statement I'M
willing TO express opinion. because such subtle
and yet crucial distinctions are involved In terms
appcrtainng to so mysterious subject. etc.
Has he not begged the question enough without
this2 You asked nothing about 1.-THE subtle and
vet crucial distinctions, etc, but, as we have seen
very plain simple question calling for no analysis
of Subtle and yet crucial distinctions in terms.
"A wayfaring man, though fool, need not err
therein" Is or is not the doctrine of the mass
etc in harmony with the teaching OF the Epis-
copal Church? simple yes or no was all that was
necessary.
In the next paragraph the Bishop gives US re-
freshing and comfortable words by way of addi-
toni will only add that there cannot be any
thing truly Catholic held concerning it by any one.
anywhere, that Is not held by one Drahch VI the
Catholic Church"
If truly Catholic" why do not all the branches
hold IT? The English and American churches con-
denim the doctrine of the mass 'blasphemous
fables and dangerous deceits" The Roman Church
accepts 1t as true. Here are two views held con-
corning II by branches Of the Catholic Church,
and they are as opposite to each other the poles.
Which is truly Catholic? Both cannot be. On
which branch does the Bishop sit?
He lastly laments that he has not some "authori-
subject" Allow me to refer him to Inc Church
Kaiendar," The Priest and the Congregaton'
English church, and circulated in this country;
The Catholic Champion paper EDITED ana pub
York These are authoritative. In addition 10
these allow me 10 refer him TO Article XAHI OF
Rock OF Common Prayer, which says: Wherefore
the sacrifices OF the masses IN which II was com
monty said that the priest dd oer up ThT n dG
or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous
Now as TO the second question What is the
attitude OF the Episcopal Church toward confession
am somewhat surprised that the Bishop did not
fault you as he has done above. Because nc round
nothing in the authoritative standards Of the
evades this issue bgt here he says precise reply
things which, in his opinion coincide with his
views He rightly says that C0nfess9 Sn cannot so be
Instances the. Church allows and recommends
9ondSn na en- to she
What Instances? Why so general neral e EN-
I know. only one instance, viz, a criminal under
sentence OF death. Here is the rubric The min:
his sins and upon his confession he shall instruct
him what satisfaction ought to be made to those
sion the priest shall declare to him the pardoning
q cSd the fern used Sc In ss Ss sn Ton
which he Is condemned. after which the priest is
to declare the pardoning mercy Of God IN other the
the word absolution is not used
Of , ssnSe ass" desires bsouoD this psmp
poses and compels confession" 1t would II the
facts are as the Bishop represents them but. un-
fortunately for him. they are not. take II that
ne refers 10 bottom OF page 2N OF the Book OF Com
mon Prayer where the expression 'quietinr ones
conscience occurs: Here is what IS said: " there
be any OF you who by these means cannot quiet
his conscience herein but requreth further counsel
and comfort let him come TO soma other
minister OF Gods word and open his grief. that he
NAV receive such godv counsel and advice as may
tend 10 the ouietne OF his conscience ana the re-
moving OF all scruple and douhtfuness."
Not one word about confession and absolution
Sin Is not even Indirectly hinted AZ Grief is
broad term. There Is grief which has not per-
sonal sin for its cause and there is sin which Is
not a grief And as for doubts. all doubts are not
sin or sinful. r.tsy may mark the struggle OF