The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1901-07-20
KING EDWARDS OFFENSIVE OATH.

1T WIFI be remembered that the de-
nouncenent of the doctrine of transub-
sanitation embodied in the declaration
made by King Edward VII, on his &C.
cession provoked vehement protests on
the part Of English and Irish Catholics.
A select committee Of the House of
Lords was appointed to consider
whether revision of the offensive
terms would be practicable. That
committee reported OH Monday of last
week, but the Archbishop of Canter-
bury moved that the report be referred
back to the committee. and it seems
probable that, after a discussion of 1t,
such reference will he made. In
that event no revision Of the ,lr,.l:,ra-
ton is likely to be effected during this
year, and it may be that the agitation
on the subject will die III. In view of
the firm opposition Of the m,.s 81 The
Protestant community to any amend
ment of the declaration made under
oath by every king Of England since
the Test act was passed in the reign ct
Charles II, says the New York Sun.
The declaration as 1t NOW stands,
reputhates as "supnstitious and Idol
atrohs" the Roman Catholic doctrine
which asserts that, through consecra-
ton by q priest, the substance of bread
and wine is changed INTO the sub
stance of Christs body and blood.
This characterization of the doctrine
was described by Cardinal Vaughan,
soon after the declaration was uttered
by Edward VIII, us N declaration
against our Lord Jesus Christ" und,
subsequently, in pastoral letter as
IAN outrage committeilagainst our Lord
Jesus Christ" About the same time
Scotch Roman Catholic Bishop, DIR.
Chisholm, pronounced the declaration
an "infamy," and "'lisgraceful." On
May Z. 1901, mt a meeting of the Brad
ford Catholic Union, ut which two
Roman Catholic Bishops We're present,
the chairman accused the King of
deliberate perjury in that, when he
made the declaration. he "swore that
"'lrtch he could not in his heart be-
lieve to he true."
For time the English and Irish
Catholics seemed not UNLIKELY to Sic
coed in procuring Il modification of the
terms complained of in the declara-
ton, and. as we have said, a select
committee of the House of Lords was
appointed for the purpose. AS time
went on. however, the Protestant ma
jority Of the British population
began TO evincc interest in the
matter. and great numbers of
them ultimately took the ground
that no change whatever should
be made by Parliament in the decla-
ration until the explicit assent thereto
of the British people should be sought
and gained at general election. "A
petition to that effect was presented
on June % to the committee of the
House Of Lords by Col. II. Myles
sandys. NJ. p. at the request of the
Council Of the Imperial Protestant
Federation, the chairman of which he
Is. This Is a very important body,
comprising no fewer than twenty seven
Protestant associations in England,
Scotland and ireland, and itself con-
stttMang a considerable proportion Of
the Protestant population Of the United
Kingdom. 1t is pointed out in this
petition that the Tablet. the Roman
Catholic newspaper owned by Cardinal
Vaughan, lately described the rejection
of the dogma of Observation-Disclosures
contained In the royal declaration as,
so to speak, ''the flag of Professionalism
nailed over the threshold of the throne,
and on the very apex of the British
Constitution" Accepting the correct
ness of this description, the Imperial
Protestant Federation says, "Let us
keep the good old Protestant flag fly
ing!" And it goes on to demand that