LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 101, 22 January 1908, Page 4

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

$ —. — NIC W.MAX AND MODERNISM. •Sir, —1 beg to acknowledge the answer of your correspondent who signs his article as "A Catholic (not Homan) " and-I am more than amused at his choosing such a title. How can he call himself a Catholic)if lie does not belong to that church which even tho most pronounced atheist can point out without difficulty. The word Catholic in its.technical and world-wide sense implies a member ol that Church of which the Pope is the visible head on earth. His nom-dc-pluuie plainly affirms that your correspondent does not belong to.that Church, and therefore be is not a Catholic in the generally accepted sense of the term. Now for the reference to Nowman by tho same authority, and l-.miiy • here say that I regret your correspondent did not quote some more able and acknow-' ledged authority than the writer quoted. If the late Cardinal Newman were alive today he would have been one of ' the Pope's strongest defender:-:-, anil, Sir,; owing to the reverence that is felt for his name and tho aficctiouate regard in which his character is held, too much care cannot lie taken to remove even the slightest danger of misunderstanding as to his sentiments regarding the Holy Father. Jfcr. John S. Vaughan, then, has done well to quote in a contribution to "Rome" an appropriate passage from Newman's writings with reference to a case in which tlio I opo interfered. The great Oraforian's words are free from all ambuguitv. "It is tlio decision of tho Holy See," 'ho wrote. . St. Peter has spoken; it is lie who has enjoined that which seems to us so unpromising. He has spoken,.and has a claim on us to trust him. Efe is no recluse, no solitary student, no dreamer about the past, no doter upon tho dead and gone, no projector of the visionary. He, for eighteen hundred years, has lived in the world; ho has seen 'all .fortunes, ho has encountered all adversaries, lie has shaped himself to all emergencies. If over there was a power on earth who had ail eye for tho times, who has eonfined himself* to tho practicable, and has been happy in his anticipations, whoso words liavo been facts, mid whoso commands prophecies, such is ho in tho history of ages, who sits from generation to generation in tlio _ chair of the Apostles as tho Vicar of Christ and tho Doctor of his Church. . . From tho first ho has looked through tho wide world, of which : ho has tho burden; and accordingly to the need of the day, and the inspirations of his Lord, he has set himself now to one tiling, now to another; l.ut to all in season, and to nothing in vain." By one imbued with such a spirit theiidea of dissent from tho Holy Father's teaching could not for a moment- ho entertained. And at- an interview between tho London Tablet's Romo correspondent- and a. cardinal of the Roman Curia, the query of the correspondent was answered by the authority in these words" There is not the least donbt here about Newman's loyalty to tlio Church. . . There is 110 suspicion as to his orthodoxy. . . And take it to be absolutely certain flint neither in tho decree of the Holy Office, nor in tliii Encyclical (against Modernism) is there the most distant allusion to any of the works of Newman." ' So liuicli for tho absurd statement that "no body is harder hit by tlio Encyclical than Nowman." It is a pity that those who presume to write about these things do not show a. 'deeper and more'convincing knowledge of the snjijcct instead of quoting such grotesque autnorities like the so"-calIod R.C. correspondent of the "Church Times." The Cardinal's essay, on development was written and partly printed before lie became a Catholic. Ho offered to submit it (oil his conversion) for revision to the proper authorities, but tlioy refused- because it was written as a liou-Catholic. Later on in life ho (tenth edition) declared that lie submitted every part of the hook to the judgment of tho Church. ,

Therefore, even granting that there was anything censured by the Church in the work, it would not affect Newman at all, nor help the Modernists. Oil the contrary, if the.v were as self-denying as lie was ill. their writings, they would not ho making themselves ridiculous in the eyes of the Catholic world as they are*doing. The Church believes in the development of Christian doctrine, always did, and judging from her present position as compared to the primitive state, your correspondent cannot lio blind to the fact of her tremendous development. Modernism is destructive, not constructive, and is only another name for cultism. He. France, my friend is singularly unhappy. The facts to bo gleaned from unbiased and authoritative sources arc as follow:—Only those who are vvil fully blind must admit that the Pope's policy in regard to Franco has already amply vindicated his wisdom, and is doing immense service to the cause, rif religion. _ Never were the Churches better attended in that country than at present. In Paris alono several new parishes have had to bo created to cone with the revival of religion. One could go on multiplying instances olid proofs, but 1 fear your correspondent's opinions have been formed from biased sources. ' Trusting to bo favoured with insertion, 1 am, "A liliNtlNE CATHOLIC." Sir, —In rc-ply to ■ your "Catholic (not Roman)" correspondent's views regarding the stato rif tho Catholic Church in Franco 1 would liko to say that while tho French Church has truly made enormous sacrifices of temporal goods, I think that any. unbiassed person will readily admit that her spiritual glory is greatly ;enhanced by tho unanimous and generous obedience of tho, French hierarchy to tho Pope. Your correspondent is evidently quite satisfied with tho "Church Times* " self-styled "Roman Catholic" correspondent's condemnation of the recent Kncyclie.il .and with his opinion that. .Newman's "Essay on ■Development" is censured as modernist teaching. I would point, out that development is oF two lands, namely, progressive (i.e. a dogma becomes morn fully explained in each succeeding age) and.transforming (i.e. the substitution of one dbgm:i for another which lias professedly become untrue). It is this latter sense (i.e. transforming development.) that tho Encyclical condemns. Now the theory of development which Newman advanced was progressive as dolined above. He gave seven notes of a true development including "Preservation of Type" and "Logical Sequence." Tho speculations of this "Roman Catholic" correspondent as to Newman's acceptoneo of this Encyclical aro completely upset by tho fact that the Vatican Council condemned tho modernist development of dogma in 1870, and neither Newman or his friends seemed to think that ho was aimed at then. Further quite recently the "Osservatoro Romano" (tho official organ of the Vatican) expressly declared that- Newman ivas not condemned by tho Encyclical ,-ind surely the best interpreter of tho intention of a document is the party who issues it.—l am, etc., I'TDELIS. [\V« cannot accept any further correspondence on this subject.—.lid.]