New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-04-27
THE MASS AND CONFESSION
AN ANSWER TO ARCHDEAcoN TIFF.
FANY'S STATEMENT OF EPlS-
CoPAL DOCTRINE.


portance OF the subject as because II was ap-
parenty written in response to an INQUIRY ao-
dressed by you TO Bishop Potter. who. unoer press
ure Of business suggested that you apply TO the
Archdeacon instead for the Information sought
The questions propounded by you are;
Ffrst-Is or is not the doctrine OF the Mass az
he,d nv the advanced Catholic party of the Eng
,sh Church in harmony with the teachings OF the
Episcopal Church?
second-what is the attitude of the Episcopal
Church toward the doctrine OF Auricuiar comes
sion. either enforced or voluntary?
To each of these questions the Archdeacon an
swers in terms that neither the Mass nor Aurcuiar
. confession is sanctioned by the American Prayer
Book.
II will not think be claimed that the Arch
deacon by virtue OF his office. has authority 10 oe
eide these or any other doctrina points either Ior
the Church or for this diocese. His dic'a, 'ne'
fore must rest for their commentator 10 Chu'o"-
men either on the implication that he voices 'ne
opinion OF his Bishop or because or the Hu,ii'.S
merits of his arguments. There is nothing' nueeu,
TO show that Bishop Potter designs tha' We e""''
take these views his own
More than this. there is nothing IN inc 0o"'
,,ons OF the Church to give binding force 10 even
the views of a Bishop, although 1t is true 0.
course that any opinion expressed py Ple'"'e
Bishop Potter's eminence would carry great "e's"'
with Churchmen. but. as already stated the ie@'e
,s not nut forth as the Bishops. but merely tho
,ouchins both sides Of wide controversy. ana pur-
porting to settle with the certainty OF the multi
pication table doctrinal points that are asl."'e
the Anglican Church both sides OF the AuanNc
the Doctors letter demands word OF reply loi'
notwithstanding the certainty OF MS decislohs' 'e
case IS far from clear he presents H.
ANGLICAN DOCTRINE OF THE MASS
po.ard,rg the Mass II is to be regretted that the
Arohdeacon fails to define the Anglican doctrine
on ,bis noint He assumes instead that the tcach-
tnes of the Catholic party are Identical win mus
Of the Roman Church. an assumption whch, at 'e
hands Of any but man OF learning "ouiu mp r
gross ignorance Of the subject. The fact Is 'he
American Church in even its most advanced
school has never taught or practised other use Vi
the office Of Holy Communion than Is olsIincty III
culcated by the Thirty-nine Articles OF hehsio"
,aken In Intelligent conjunction with primitive
Catholic usage. Nor will any Churchnuil u 49,
learning for a moment confuse the once as '"uo
used with the Roman Mass. DR.. Tnany hmseI
admits that the word Mass rs simple ana h"rih-
Lose enough in itself" Wen may ne 90 So LOT III
the same breath he adds that the Prayer booh Vi
1870 used the term as substitute for the WORDS
HOY Communion BY inference II is not conclusive
against its revival that the term was subsequently
omitted from the Rook of 1552-this for the simple
reason that nobody claims that the term shal DC
used 10 the exclusion OF all Others. Inc "oiuS
commonly called tho Mass merely concedes 10
This service the name applied TO 1t by popular
and America care TO revive it, no authority can
deny them the right. That they are doing so IN
eyer-increasing numbers is evidenced by INC
strenuous efforts making In certain quarters u
nut II down OF course. nobody wants 10 force 'he
term on those whose prcjudces blind them TO It's
real propriety. The service remains the same no
matter what one or the other calls it, Inc name
e. not essential and only becomes important "heh
the color of authority is employed to deny IN II
VI Is wholly lawful
the point Of usage 1t might be we'll to re-
mind the Archdeacon that the term Mass has SIX
teen centuries of unques toned acceptance in the
CHURCH against two centuries Of disusc. 1t has a
distinct meaning which implies all that the Church
teaches 1t admits when honestly interpreted,
nothing that the Church denies; it is orief ana
\ easily pronounced. 1t is the term by which even
u >e Reformed Church OF England knew the Eu-
harist through the reigns of Henry VIII, Mary
and Edward VI. down, in fact to the advent OF
the disciples of Calvin, who all but robbed the
Church Of every badge Of Apostolic authority.
THE NAME OF THE MASS.
II is rot enough 10 declare that the second
PRAYER Book abandoned the term Mass" II did IN
fact omit 1t from its title-page and the omission
has not yet been repaired. But 1t had not been put
forth as the main title of the Office but merely as
the commonly called" name of 1t. On the other
hand the book which used IT was declared to be
the direct inspiration Of the Holy Ghost. and that
claim for 1t has never been withdrawn Succeed
Ing books have boosted no such divine authority
VIII Dr. Tiffany deny the use of what tho
Church solemnly puts forth the work of the
Second Person OF the Trinity? sincerely hope not.
Here the Doctor dips into history. He says:
After that shortlived book o. e., the one inspired
by the Holy Ghost the term Mass, even as
commonly called. never reappeared in the Eng
llsh formulares. The reason for this was PLAIN.
Mass had come 10 mean the Roman doctrine of tho
Eucharist" How and when had 1t come to so
mean? Was 1t under Henry VIII, who shattered
the Roman power and restored the independence OF
the English Church? Under the brief reaction of
Mary I? Under the sway of the Protestant Ed
ward and Elizabeth? Under all these there was no
radical change Of teaching OF the English Church.
From what can gather indeed. by contempt
raneous testimony. the English people jealous as
they were for reform, wanted no un-Cathoic
change. Any such that came was forced upon
them by the Crown under the foreign influence OF
Zwingle and his followers of the Geneva school In
truth so opposed were the English 10 an abandon
ment of Catholic teaching and practice that under
Edward VI rebellion arose in Devonshire for
restoration Of the ''od Latino Mass" and King Ed
ward himself quieted 1t by assuring the insurrec-
tionares that at seemeth TO you a New Service.
yet 1t is other than the old. the self-same
words in English, save few things taken out.
That the opinion of Edward VI Of the book
for which the Church claims divine inspiration, but
whose Technology the Doctor denies to us II is
clear. therefore that the term Mass" down 10
and long after its omission from the book cannot
have had any popular confusion with the Roman
Mass. the Doctor claims. With this his chief OBJ
lection falls TO the ground
TRANSU
The Doctor now goes on to depart from his argu-
ment TO have crack at that bette nor OF his school
OF thought-the doctrine of transubstantiation We
can readily pardon him, for few Of his thinking
can avoid the temptation Of rap at that we'll
SCARED man Of straw. The reasoning which he
follows is very familiar He cites. but carefully
omits to quote. tho twenty-eghth article though
loudly invoking IL TO prove his postuate that the
doctrine is denied by II. l will deal more fairly,
and give II as ii stands: 'Transubstantation Cor
the change of the Substance of the Bread and
wine) in the Supper OF the Lord cannot be proved
by Holy Writ. but is repugnant to the plain words
OF Scripture. overthroweth the nature OF saCra-