DENOMINATIONAL NOMENCLATURE

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 109, 31 January 1908, Page 4

DENOMINATIONAL NOMENCLATURE

. Sir,—lt came as. a '.surprise to mo to find in ah article m your columns of the 2/tli inst. that objection is taken, to the namo "Nonconformists" based upon the plea that thero is no Established Ctiurch in inow Zealand, and tliat tticreloro there is ' no subordination. Objection might, however, justly bo taken on historical grounds. Nonconformists wero persons who belonged, to tho Church of England but refused; tp.conform' to tho ritual. They, wero,not separatists 'at "all. Still I amongst others como to. tho term rather'than "Dissenters", understanding that our friends £<iro themselves the name. ' .Now it seems ono namo. is. regarded as obnoxious as tho other and'!wo are in difficulty, as to olfend needlessly is tho last thing : desired. Wo aro further told that tho '■■. words aro meaningless here,' but if that is all little liarhi is by their use. -, 1 liq oltouee, real or affected, arises from a curious misconception. , 'l'he advantago or disadvantage of Stato establishment has nothing to do with .tho question. Tho Prefnco to tho Ordinal will ; show that the'important thing is; tho' continuity of tho Church and her threefold .ministry. Religious .organisations, that Havo,originated their own ministries havo. a; dilt'erenc -standing altifctogether, and to . say that tho ditterence tirisos from, State establishment (whatever that means) .is to, miss the mark entirely.Ijho .terms in question aro not political at all, This will appear from tho fact that they aro not applicu to,members of the Church of England of tho mischief tho state is working in 'its 'interference-with tho Church; dissent in snch circumstances from tho principle of a State Church ; and aro striving for separation; Further our friends lack consistency, in their opposition to tho usual application of tho terms rc--l erred to. Vvlij- do they not; for similar reasons object-to '»as 4 feel hurt at being called "'Protestants I.think tho artido you publish; is wrong in saying, that. Roman Catholics accept'that deI signation only liecauso it. is imposed upon tliein by the State. Now tho Creed of Popo Pi.us.lv was not tho.work of tho State but of-tho .Popo,. himself. -, In ,it converts aro ''auglit,to,,ac|*nowledgg ',;!tho;.,lJoly Catholic, and Apostolio r 'Roman r Chufclr. to be tho mother and mistress of all churches." Indeed tho Creed is introduced ; by, tho words "Ego N. iirnia fido credo ot -profitcor-omina et singula, quao. colitinenlur, in : -Symbolo Fidei quo. Sancta* ROmaiia Ecclcsia utitur.!' Here it wil. Jbo soon even the word "Catho- ' lie" is dropped. Not long ago in conversation witlia devout and estimabio member oftho phurch of Rome I. fquha I . had'unwittingly hurt his feelings by. using the expression "Roman Catholic." I-was sorry, but what was Ito sky?, Not long afterwards, and this would bo about threo years ago, I road that in tho House of Commons Mr. Delany protested against tho word "Roman" being interpolated in ono of his questions beforo tho frord "Catholic," slnco ho regarded tho expression as offonsive. Tho Speaker pointed out that the' phraso was not in tended to; bo anything of tlio kind. Ho added:—"lt' is, a term used not for tho purpose of creating, hut of avoiding, any feci-, lings of religious objection, or animosity of any kind. It is ono that has always been understood, and to which no objection has beeii'taken. As tho word ' Catholic' is claimed by other Churches, as well as by. tho Roman Catholic, tho word 1 Roman'. is merely , intended to avoid any dispute, difference' or ambiguity, and for no other purpose, has.it..been used. It has always been tho practice to indicate, by, tho. words ' Roman Catholic,' what Church is meant." Wo might just as', well object to and feel hurt by the term "Anglican.-'.' Rut somehow wo seem to take Quietly any name given us, and perhaps it. is as well wo do. Yet to tajk of, say, a "Maori Anglican" seems somewhat strange.—l am, etc.,