« AnteriorContinuar »
it as the most ingenious defense of Romanism I had ever encountered. It gave a promise (a promise that Tyrrell ultimately failed to fulfil) of a Liberal Catholicism within the very Papal fold. But I ventured then to utter a prediction the exact accomplishment of which filled me with reprehensible conceit. I prophesied to a friend that within ten years Tyrrell would be condemned by the Curia.
The Faith of the Millions provided no ground for condemnation (indeed it was stamped with the Nihil obstat of the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster), but the Jesuit Father's subsequent works-The Much-abused Letter to a Professor and Medievalism-furnished ample offense. At the end he was neither Roman nor Catholic; indeed the works published after his formal condemnation made one wonder if he would long continue Christian.
The Modernist movement gave the Papal See genuine occasion for alarm, and with remarkable zeal it was to 'all appearances promptly stamped out. Indeed as far back as 1895 a quietus had been given to the theory of development, and, as I took occasion to remind him, it deprived my English Roman Catholic correspondent of the only argument he vouchsafed to advance for the Papal claims. The Pope will have none of the idea that what is now full-grown was once in the Church only in "germ," or that what is now consciously of faith was once unconsciously believed. Therefore when a Roman Catholic advances the theory of the development of doctrine as a defense of the Sovereign Power and Infallibility of the Roman Bishop, in reply it is sufficient to quote the words of Leo XIII in the Encyclical Satis Cognitum, which if not themselves infallible are nevertheless practical law for Papal subjects: in the decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth, but the venerable and constant belief of every age."'*
*Quibus de causis, Concilli Vaticani decreto, quod est de vi et ratione primatus Romani Pontificis, non opinis est invecta nova, sed vetus et constans omnium seaculorum asserta fides. Satis Cognitum p. 39.
The Papacy itself has thus effectually declared anathema the only effective argument for its claims. And how long will it be before members of the Papal Obedience in private conversation and personal thinking cease to plead in behalf of Papal Infallibility arguments that the infallible Papacy condemns? For the continual pressing of an argument ruled out of court by the highest Roman juridical officer is unnecessarily confusing the Papal question. And, on the other hand, it may be asked, will discontented Anglicans, in the face of the demonstrated facts of history, continue to be deluded into imagining that the decrees of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff have been "the venerable and constant belief of every age?"
We ask and echo answers, for the evidence either of its antiquity or constancy. Peter and Paul and John and Luke and James are silent. The Apostolic Fathers have nothing to say. The Doctors of the Church openly disputed every point of the increasing claims of the Bishops of Rome. For centuries the occupants of the Papal See cursed three of their predecessors as heretics. Pope Gregory the Great anathematized any one who should call himself Universal Bishop. The East never acquiesced in Roman supremacy. England, without repudiating Catholic doctrine or practice, threw off the yoke that had been gradually imposed. The Roman Catholic communion itself was almost torn asunder by disputes on the question of Papal Infallibility in the generation when many pressed for the definition. The faithful of Ireland prior to 1870 were taught in a catechism which had Papal approval that "the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is an invention of Protestants."'* The greatest theologians of the day in communion with Rome protested, some even left the Church, when the definition was promulgated. He who was to be England's greatest cardinal wrote of those who desired and intrigued for the definition as "an insolent and aggressive faction." Modernism had its rise in the course of the reaction that followed, and we are told only recently by
*Keenan's Catechism (1850).
Roman ecclesiastics that their Church is still honeycombed with Modernist ideas. How in the face of these undisputed facts the theory of development can be abandoned and a Pope can solemnly say, much less believe, that Papal Supremacy and Infallibility has been the venerable and constant belief of every age passes comprehension. As Cardinal Newman felt in correspondence with Cardinal Manning, so we in controversy with Roman Catholics, feel, that we do not know whether we are standing on our heels or on our heads.
All Catholics must ultimately admit development of doctrine, and it behooves us Anglicans to set about clarifying our ideas on the subject, to estimate clearly for the thinking faithful the limits and conditions of that development, and to declare as fully as may be what we take to be explicit and implicit doctrine in the data of revelation. We all admit that the oak tree is implicit in the acorn and the plant in the mustard seed, but even the untutored decline to see an elephant implicit in an egg.
For centuries Rome has been burning her bridges behind her. Perhaps now that the way of retreat seems finally cut off a liberal pontiff of the future may perceive the necessity, so important for the unity of Christendom, of coming to terms with the Catholicism that Rome now spurns as heresy and schism. There remains little on the present line of procedure for Ultramontanism to accomplish save the deification of the Pope.
"Hell must be an integral part of the ideal world so long as the radical convictions of Christianity retain their genuine vitality. Simply to suppress it is to substitute a vapid optimism which will never satisfy men nourished upon the Christian version of the unmistakable facts of the universe. Eternal damnation is as much a necessity of the imagination as a logical deduction from the fundamental principles of the creed." Leslie Stephen.
Is the Christian Home a Possibility Today?
BY CHRISTINE TERHUNE HERRICK.
N many households religion is conspicuous chiefly by its absence. They are not necessarily the dwellings of those who either frankly declare that they have no interest in sacred topics, or who have never had the opportunity to learn anything about these. As often as not the fathers and mothers of such families were reared in church surroundings; they may even have their names on the books of some house of worship and favour it with sporadic attendance. The children have been christened in due form; they are possibly attendants at Sundayschool. Yet so far as vital religion is concerned they might never have been exposed to its influence.
"Mother, was I ever baptized?" asked a small child who was nursing an arm sore from recent vaccination.
"Certainly, my dear. You were baptized when you were a little baby."
"Did it take?" queried the boy seriously.
Older people are inclined to put the same question sometimes with regard both to children and adults of families who would be insulted if they were not styled Christians. The application of religion to their lives has had so little apparent effect that one wonders if it could ever have gained a hold on their systems.
With all due respect to the efforts of the clergy in their specific lines; with the highest esteem for the work of church and Sunday-school, it is safe to say that these labour at a disadvantage when not supplemented or reinforced by the Christian home. The spirituality which is connected only with stated places and periods of public worship is not likely to stand fast when circumstances bring unexpected tests to the individual. Religion, to be unfailingly helpful, must be part of the warp and woof of existence, and this condition cannot be attained without home training from infancy.
Some of our worthy ancestors are perhaps responsible for the theory that the domestic hearths where the Christian ex
ample is taken as the model of life are the reverse of cheery. All of us have known or heard of instances of such homes, where harmless joys were stigmatized as inconsistent with true religion and virtue, where gloom and godliness were apparently deemed identical. Still, the most severe critic of the religious home must in fairness acknowledge that such households as this have always been in the minority. The joy of the Lord is the strength of many families and observance of the precepts the Bible and the Church have uttered for the guidance of their followers has made for temporal as well as for eternal happi
One such home I recall in particular, although I have known numbers of the same stamp. Religion in principle and practice was taken as a matter of course. The day began with family worship, or rather, this followed breakfast, at which meal, as at every other, a blessing or grace was said. When the children were little the reading of the Scriptures was assumed by the father; as they grew older each child had his turn in reading two texts, and the portions of the Bible selected to be read in course were chosen with a view to their special interest to youthful minds. It might be that the chapters were from the Old Testament and told of the lives and adventures of the people of God in early history, or the Gospel tale might be followed. The father commented upon passages that were difficult of understanding for children, questions were welcomed and answered; and the sequence of the Biblical story was made clear to all. Then each one of the family repeated a verse that had been learned for the day and there was a simple and comprehensive prayer, concluding with "Our Father" in unison.
I hasten to say I fully comprehend that in many households such a rather elaborate programme might be hard to carry out. When a business man and school children must move on schedule there is not leisure for prolonged exercises. Very well, let me refer to another home in which the time in the morning is brief and crowded.
There the devotions consist only of the reading of a few verses or a short Psalm-the portion always wisely chosen-the utter