The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1903-06-20


Rome determines, not by immediat
direction from God, but by her pre-:
ent Judgment, what bishops shall OF
cupy what sees; what shall be tn
conditions of lawful episcopal inst
tuition; what rights pastors or char
ters, or monastic foundations shaI
enjoy over against the bishops; wha
local usages shall be allowed to de
rogate from general canon law; wha
parts of the Church shall be unde
Propaganda and what not; in wha
regions a married priesthood shall b
allowed and in what not; where Lat
in, where Greek, where Slavonic, o
other tongues, shall be used in tn
mass; what form of the liturgy shal
prevail in what district; what conIi
tions of valid marriage shall be i'm
posed in each country; what fast
and feasts shall be locally obligatory
All such matters, being in them
selves indifferent and alterable,
are held to have been by Christ com
mitted wholly to the discretion of th'
Roman See. AS Bellarmine and st
Alphonso Liguori remark, extreme
and manifest unwisdom or oppressive
ness could alone excuse from obedi
ence. AS DR.. Byrne says, no simpl,
ecclesiastical law binds Christians t.
incur grievous incommodity. Yet th'
presumption is always for a compli
ance, especially since, as observed by
three eminent Episcopalians, DR.
Briggs, Bishop Creighton and BishoI
CE,,H e IL
remarked for a calm and central view
of things, and in general for toler
ant reasOnableness in her disciplin
ary enactments.
Now 1 can not believe that DR.
Foster really supposes that Catholics
view Rome as having the same dis
creticnary power of prescribing faith
or morals as of prescribing discipline
Yet the word prescribe" naturally
signifies that anything is a matter OF
optional enactment. Moreover, most
Protestants vaguely imagine Rome to
claim very nearly the same power of
altering faith or morals as of altering
discipline. Nay, when a Baptist paper
(and that not Southern Baptist late
voice of the Church to be as good as
the voice of God, cor better" in de-
termining all matters whatever, the
unspeakable foulness of this horrible
calumny appears not to have evoked
the faintest remOnstrance from any
one of its many readers.
Of course I do not for a moment
DR.. Foster to stand in the
category of such evil men as these
two Northern Baptist editors. He is
plainly a Christian, scholar.
never falling into virulence,
and sincerely solicitous to present Ro-
man Catholic doctrine effectively as
It is. Perfectly candid he is not, for,
Where you find candor perfect, as in
Augustus Neander controversy has
You may say the same
'f Mandell and Creighton. On the
'ther hand, when Luther is discussing
With Rome, or with Henry VIII. you
10 not find in him the remotest ap-
,roach to truth, honesty, decency. or
o any Christian quality whatever. II
lave read two of his works through in
he German, his answer to Henry.
md 'The Freedom of a Christian
Nan" and as DR.. Jansen points out,
is astonishing to see the contrast
'etween the marvellous spiritual beau
y of the latter, and the embodied
of speech and temper in
uch works as the former. Therefore.
Then we are talking of Luther we
ught always to signify which Luther
re are talking of, for it almost seems |
s If there were two souls in the one
IAN.
To come back to commonplace men
Ike DR.. Foster and me, I have no
oubt that he would be as nearly de-
ached from Protestant prejudices as
can claim to be, in his presentation
Catholic doctrine, had he too had a
hildhood fusing the remembrances of
he two religions, and then been for
ears secluded from ecclesiastical ur-
encies among the tropical noun
lihs, and afterwards in an invalid's
namber AS he has not been thus
ealt with, he is still with all honesty
purpose, imperfectly able to detach
Imself from the commonplaces of
rotestant prejudice. Otherwise he
ould hardly use prescribe" for the
'ofoundly different word define" or
leclare," or "expound," or for "set
'rth''
There is the more occasion here
r insisting on the utmost exactness
expression, as so distinguished
Id deeply read man as Mr.. Henry
narles Lea evidently imagines doc
inc at least, is not morals, to be
terable at the will of the Church.
S l have several times cited his
ords, he expressly declares his be-
If that Catholics hold it to be within
e power of an infallible Pope, as
sted by an infallible council. to- con
'rt an article of faith into a simple
DIVISION of discipline, or to make the
me thing matter of faith here and
mere discipline there!
We see here how sometimes no DOS
Die breadth of reading will enable a
an to penetrate into the interior ap-
of a system from which he
al1enated by inveterate PROPOSES
'ns. Mr.. Lea is one of the great
tiers of the day, yet here. in a
-al point, he suddenly lapses into (
Vulger a misapprehension of Ro- s
In Catholic doctrine, although GER B
MY into no such vulgar expression b