The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1900-02-18
MATTERS OF RELIGION.
DIR. MIVART AND THE ROMAN GATH
orc CHURCH.
Very Striking Explanations aud Observn-
tions by "a Roman Catholic Thcologian.

To II EpIToRoF The SUS-Sir: In Sundays
Sun Mr.. Fahey writes: DR.. Mivart states that
he cannot accept certain passages OF the Old
Testament as true. because they are In his
opinion contrary 10 scientific truth. yet ne
accepts the doctrine OF Transubstantiation."
In this sentence Mr.. Fahey implies that
Transubstantlation II opposed 20 sc'ent'nc
truth. He continues: There never was, there
never can be. a doctrine moro opposed to
scientific demonstrable truth" Let US see
what science has 10 say.
According to the evidence OF the senses the
species OF bread Is present In tho Eucharist,
but, under the species OF bread. you certainly
have not the evidence OF tho senses. because
the senses do not take cognizance OF SUBJ
stances. The senses attain only TO the phe-
nomena. ard never to the substance. or subject
OF the phenomena. Chemical analysis gives us
only sensible phenomena. BY the light OF rea-
son alone, therefore. We cannot affirm or deny
what the Catholic Church teaches on the SUBJ
ject Of the Eucharist.
Augustine makesa distinction between the
Ineligible and sensible body. and he says IT is
the Ineligible body OF Christ that Is present In
the Eucharist. There is no change in the visi-
BILE or sensible body OF bread in Transubstan.
tlatlon. 1t il only the Ineligible or non-sen.
sible that Is transubstantlatei. The change
takes place in the essence or substance, or In
the Ineligible body. and hence we call such
a change Transubstantiation. Newman says
characterization is difficult. is impossible
TO imagine. but no had no difficulty In
believing 1t when he recognized the
Church was the oracle OF truth and
OF God. and that she declares this
dnotrinn m hA "a nnrt nf fhA original
revelation. I cannot prove it. he continues. /
cannot tell how It Is, But why should II not
be' What is to hinder it' What DO know OF
substance or matter2 just as much as the
greatest philosopher. and that is nothing at all.
Reconsideration deals with what no one on
earth knows anything about. the material SUBJ
stances themselves. In like manner what DO |
know OF the essence OF tho Divine Being' My
abstract idea OF three is incompatible with my
idea Of one; but when | come to a question Of
concrete fact. | have no means Of proving that
there Ia not q sense In which one and three can
equally be predicated OF the Incommunicahle
God. Hence science cannot say anything on
the real presence OF Christ IN the sacrament Of
the Eucharist.
Mr. Fahey continues mir. Mivart must
know that his Catholic friends who believe
that Joseph was the father Of Christ are formal
heretics. even secret h%rretics. and a secret
hereto is a liar. a humbuZ anl n time server"
This is a subject u~nsuitcd for the disputat.ous,
the loquacious, the contentious, or the pre-
sumptuous, and should be only treated by the
solidly educated and those iuteliigcntly yersed
in religion. Faith Is not lost except by a
g~riayous sin. Suarez calls formal hcr.sy cul-
table hpresy. He says u person may believe IN
heresy. but may not be n culpable horetic. In
common with all thoologians he calls
such q one u material hereto. All theolo-
CLANS agree that for formal heresy
there must be knowledge on part OF the In
tellec'. and consent on part OF the will. For
the wilful transgression OF any preccpt. adyer-
tencc on the part Of the intellect and consent
on the part Of The will are essential. How does
Mr.. fahey know then that Miyart's friends are
formal or culpable h%erctics? Uoresy. Accord
ing 10 Aquinas. implies n profession OF
Christian belief. The hereto Is right in the
end which he proposes. or processes 10 Propose
70 himself. viz. the Christian truths, hut the
error consists In the choice 81 the means to co.
cure tho end. Aquinas defines herosy
az an error pcrtinaciou-ly held. and clearly
rrpugnast to the faith on tho part OF
one who processes the faith o. Christ
Formal and culpable mean practically tha
same thing When a man kaorUglB rejects
revealed truth, or doubts it. he lie n formal
hereto. He may become such hv denying
truths taught by the actual magistcrium otthe
Church. although ~uch truths are not expressly
dogmatically defined. Nr. Fnhcy Is very hard
on secret heretics. Bellarmine and most
theologians teach that secret heretics are
members Of tho Church of Christ. Would it
not he better and more charitable to pray for
them than abuse them?
Now, let us see what the moral theologinns
have to say. A person may receive the sacra-
ment Of penance yalilly. although personally
he does not accep, the sacrament OF penance
as such. II We assume that's person has faith
In the essential dognas Of tho Church. faith in
the other dOgnas is not absolutely necessary
for salvation: hence II such n persons unhe-
lief Is iNc1lpdGle, o. only slightly culpable. no
may receive the sacrament Of pcnancH .rutt-
fully. even though he lid not believe in It's eff
flcacy. II Nivlrt hopes for Qualification
through the divinsly constituted means, but
docs not believe in the sacrament Of penanco.
and he l. In good faith in this belief, he would
certainly receive the sacrament validly and
fruitfully Il he wishc / to receive what Catholics
receive. This is Catholic theology and COM
nonsense.
Let US go a step further. What do thcolo-
gians say Of q person who belongs apparently
TO tho Episcopal or BAPTIST Church, and bc-
loves he belongs to the Church Of Christi
Murray. the greatest authority on thia particu-
lar subject. writes that children baptized in a
hcretical church are members " the body Of
the Church. and continue TO remain such til
,In. y n uarnrntaI from, tb, i'l,troh 10 "a for