BOHEMIA.

Waikato Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 2391, 5 November 1887, Page 2 (Supplement)

BOHEMIA.

lid': / 'mr the people, ./■, If,' Id:,' I; .•' I'll- ill' tn thru- ryrt; Tn - i di it A, u -’l, I (A. not relink tr'K The' ,W npplmi,r mill nr re V'hnmnt ; Aw ! th-d: Hi ■ mvi ol’nt/> iliiei-elioti, hr >h» MinsriiK fou Measure. 1 un'i: b-m handed a letter from Father Fox, 0.5.1!., residing in I laniilton, in winch lie takes me to task for making „of the exnressinn “ pantomimic

p i|i r of ii," A’ • I Oet.i'. r, w dm uc .t.ys was •• 111 ■<'• " p "bensililc I ir many reasons." Fithcr F.x m ik'.s the particular request that Ins letter should he public,,M. 1 very reluct intly accede to the reverend gentieniaii's wish for many rea-son-'also, by incorporating his arguments vcihalim on the present occasion. First, I regret Father Fox cannot dUtingnish wiiat lay beneath my satiic in its application to broad principles involved in the cpU'-nion of purity of divine worship. If the Homan Catholic clergy, or any other, or members of any association whatsoever are so thin-skinned as to attempt to rebut or turn aside the satires of public writers, from Bunch downwards, they would not only have no time left for any other labour, hut would bring wholesafe ridicule upon themselves. In the second place 1 wish to avoid entering noon matters ot controversy that will wound the feelings of many excellent people, in the course of which we are Pound to ho misunderstood. I have many intimate friends amongst the Roman Catholics, have resided several years in Roman Catholic countries, and have often come in personal contact with many of their clergy. I believe I may claim to know snllicicnt about their Church to he able to support anything I may ever say or write about them without breach of friendly good feelings, notwithstanding my difference of faith.

Filth or Fox lays down tlio followin'? theses in his loiter, to prove the error of my expressions : —“lst, Mnny Catholics would no Homier worship with pantomimic ceremonies than yon would yourself, and they are quite an capable as yon are to judge where the pantomime enters, and where it is out of place.” Father Fox is quite ri<fht ; very many Catholics do so judge, ns lam aware by experience ; and they adhere to their religion nevertheless, I remember corning out of St. Benedict’s Church, iu Auckland, before its destruction, and one of the congregation, a Catholic of my acquaintance, asked me what. I thought of the service. I replied, without committing my.-elf, that I liked the sermon very much, which was true, for Father O’Cara was the preacher. “ Yes.” he said ; “ lie is a clever man, but the whole thing is very theatrical.” That was the voluntary and uninvited opinion of a Catholic devotee, hut it proves Father Fox is correct in ids thesis.

My reverend correspondent then says; “21111, The ceremonial of the Catholic Caiirch, in her liturgy, dates hack over 10TI yores previous to the deformation, and Ins won the admir.nion of many learned Prote-tants.” I made no allusion whatever to the ago of the Church ritual, therefore lam not oiled upon In offer anv comments upon that point. In fact, I will not attempt to deny its historical correctness, and I will even add that not only has the ceremonial of the Catholic Church won the admiration of certain Protestants, but it lias won the Protestants thomafdvcs, which I have no doubt Father Fox values more highly.

The next thesis is as follows 3. A cultivated mind respects symbols and seeks their signification, and knows that public worship abounds with them.” The Church under the old dispensation, from the divine revelation on .Mount Sinai, hy Cods servant. Mores, through the days of David ,>nd the Pro’ibi f i, was symbolic or I vpicM of tiic M ■ ,ia!i. The Church of the new diapeasiti-u, which replaced the old is symbolic of Christ’s great atonement on theCrossaiid of the hope, of the life to come through faith in Him. flic sacraments first established by Christ himself, and no o' her, are the true symbols of Christian worship. What the Roman Catholic (Jlmreii otto day calls symbols, and to which it gives significations not warranted by scripture, form the sum and substance of “ my reprehensible expression.” Both in belief and practice it is startlingly unlike the Christianity taught hy ourHurd and t he apostles, and directly disobeys the revealed will of Cod, who said, “ I, the fail'd thy Cod, am a jealous Cod.” (F.xud. xx, .I.) “I am the Lord; that is my name, and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.” (Isa. xlii. S.) The Homan Catechism omits the second commandment in the Decalogue. I need not repeat here the numerous passages in the New Testament in which Christ and the apostles sternly rebuked the sliuhtestpreteiiec at creature worship ; nor need I quote from the collection of indulgonced prayers found in the “ Raetola,” used by the Roman Church, in proof of the state of worship I have named.

But, as lather Fox bus put mo on my defence, I will quote from the writings of tim early Fathers themselves who are canonised saints of his church, mid accepted as undoubted authorities by Christian theologians, to show how they strove nobly to prevent Iho spread of the false practice of invocation and image-wm-ship. St. Iremeus i. A.n. 180) “As the church has freely received from the Lord so docs she freely minister, nor does she do anything by invocation of angels.” Origeii (A,i),2;lo),“F.vory prayer and supplication and intercession aad thanksgiving must, not he sent, to any other but to God, the Lord overall, who is sufficient for all, through our t,avionr, the Son of God. M St. Aligns! ino (a. n. .'IS'.) ; “Lot not our religion ho the fulfil* of dead men, for if they lived a holy life, they caonot bo hold as seeking such honours.

they arc not to lie worshiped by way of religion." The Council of Laodicea (a d. a (JO) : “ Christians ought not to forsake the Church of Cod, and depart and invoke angels. If anyone, l.hereloro bo found giving himself to this hidden idolatry, let him in: auatiieoia, because lie hath leltour Bud .lesus Christ, the .-on of God, and Ii itli betaken liiais-if to idolatry. 1 Again Origeii says ; •‘And though some may say tl.e-e objects are not their gods, lint imitations and symbols of real ones, nevertheless they are untaught, and slavi-h, and ignorant, who imagine that the hands of low mechanic. l ) can fashion a 1 1 k*‘iic-s of Divinity. What sensible man cm refrain from smiling when lie S"'- tint me win has learned from philosophy mi 'll profound and noble sealim-eirn about God, tarns straightway to no iges ae.d oli'ers to them his prayers, : ai igi.aes that By g'Zing on these natural tilings he can amend from tliu vi-ihle symbol to that wiiieii is spiritual and immaterial." B iot iiitins (\.n. JJ!)0) ; '■ it is indi-p’ii lido ih;T wherever Uienis an imago tfieri is «•> r. For if religion consist of divine Flings, and

and toore b 1 nothing divine exc.pt in i louver ! v Ihi'ii's, it f.il ow - Ih i t innu'es .it ’ 1 .. ho n o- 1 , ■ .. . fr eu the ■ ;r. u. !' ■ i e : ■ he,'.on ill ini igc-, but o .> iigion." Alter lh" very ~1 dn i , .uidemiritory lau.pngn of the \-i,i. tv.. miowm-l Fathers, who are revered us an’h .nflo-. in matters of faith and morals by the Homan Catholic Clmreli, no exception should bo taken to the slight allusion I made, cn pus.-nnt, in my paper of the 22nd October, for mimicry and pantomimic are synonymous.

Father For then continues. “No. 1: Nearly 3,009 years ago there was a pile of buildings, standing in its newly-t-rected grandeur, which has never been surpassed. From all parts of the ivni 11 treasures hud boon sought to adorn it, The ccdara of

,nii-.ii li-i-.vi'ii ; 1 11 ■ ir heads to raise it, ilphir .-in. l !';«i-.-iis yi<• 1■1• •<i up 11 1 >;i i- gold nod ip ins to add to its magnificence. Tim t skilled artificers w, rc gathered together for ttu- work, ami the wisest min ever known in tlm worM—the w. ..mi of Solomon directed their labours. On t!ir il.iy of its dedication what cereinonh's I Wliat inc msc ! What sacrifices !;! All this at the s|ieeitil order of (bul. “ 11 .it- I will dwell, for 1 have a delight tin rein.” If those were “ pantolinmi.: ceremonies,” so are ours." Why does not Father Fox eom)ilete the picture by h.xyiner how the rebellions children of fs'ii.f nil a way from Jehovah, forfeited HU ti ov.r and the. pronii-.es If", had made to them, lost th.-ir ehosnn lands, saw their glorious Temple destroyed and thems-lves scattered over Urn earth ; an. also, that Christ the Redeemer built up an we Temple not mad", with hards His Spiritual Church, to rep! ice that one whose Corruptions so often filled Mini with anger ? Does i'atncr lox wish it. to he understood Ilia' the Homan Catholic ceremonials are identical with the Mosaic ? [fso, he is coming on uncertain ground. Moreover, he is inconsistent in tint case, because, in No. 2 above piloted, he claims that the liturgy of his Church dates only from the sixth century a.d. Origen and Laetantins are a sntUeient reply also to the rcvercy.il gentleman’s query.

“5 and (i.—The respect wc owe cadi other will make us pause and re.llect seriously whether it is refinement to throw such an odious epithr-t at a denomination,d difference of worship. I do not think that the most polished of the ago regard ns as inferior to other denominations, cither in intellect or morals, teach log or examples, and yet your sweeping condemnation puts us amongst the idiots and charlatans.” Father Fox has forgotten his login. In the sentence which has raised his holy ire I coupled the ‘'pantomimic worship” of the Roman Catholic with the "antics of the Savation Army,” to whom he refers as “ idiots and charlatans.” Did he pause to reflect whether it was "refinement or p dish to use such odious epithets” at, or make sncli a 11 sweeping condemnation ” of, that sect? What right lias lie to do so, or is Father Fox superior in judgment to Cardinal Manning, who publicly acknowledged that Iho Salvation Army was an instrument of great good, however much wc might condemn their extraordinary antics which made a burlesque of religion ? Father Fox also must condemn Origen and the other great Fathers ; if he does so then he must condemn the infallibility of his Church, for it canonised those noble theologians, and recognises them as Doctors to this day.

Father Fox next admonishes me thus : 11 7. I trust that in your future efforts to promote the common good, you will seriously consider whether it suits any good purpose, or your interest, to wantonly insult the Catholic community and regard them or their ceremonies as worthy of sarcastic contempt.” I am pleased to see that the worthy cleric recognises I am making efforts to “ promote the common good.” I deny any intention to wantonly insult the Catholic or any other body ; indeed I may claim that, in following the divine precept, “eschew evil and turn to _ that which is good,” I have given evidence of a perfectly unbiassed mind, and Father Fox is somewhat illogical again if ho thinks that in socking the “common good,” I, or any oilier writer of independence, will exempt Catholics, simply because they are Catholics, from criticism. Nor, do I think, any intelligent Catholic desires that they, or anything belonging them, should receive any exceptional treatment from the Press ; tln’y must be aware the more the Press notices them equally with all other men and things the mure good it will do them. « V » ♦

Finally Father Fox says: “8. The word Romish is bitter and insulting as you ought to know.” Ido not know why it should be so, seeing that the Pupal see is at Rome, the Pope resides there, the executive centre of their vast system is there, consequently whatever is fixed at Romo must be Roman or Romish. I did not use the term in a local sense, though I am aware that the pro tensions of the Roman Catholic Church to universality is not admitted; that, however, is a question of ecclesiastical history for theologians to decide. In documents of their own Church, and in Papal Bulls, I find there is authority for saying that the official title of “Roman” only, lias boon sometimes used by themselves.

The Hamilton Borough Council does not appear to fully realise the importance of providing public baths. Amongst the boasts of groat cities of olden times, such as Romo, Athens, Alexandria, and as we find from the ruins of I’ompcii and Hercnlaoiemn; also from such cities as Granada and Seville during the period of the highly cultured Moors was the great number of their puiilic hatha. It is a fact that the municipal authorities of those days regarded it as part of their first duty, to provide public baths, in order to j reserve the health of the citizens. In such cities as Paris, Vienna, not to mention London, public baths are very numerous. It is very much to the discredit of our colonial cities, that these ncecssarv requirements of modern culture and public sanitation are so poorly provided. In these semi-tropical countries there, should he a bylaw in the building regulations, to compel all landlords to furnish bath-rooms to every house erected by them. The corporation of Auckland have spent the ratepayer's money in erecting fresh and salt water baths. They make those institutions self-supporting by charging bathers a small fee, a very proper course. Yet the baths of Auckland are notoriously insufficient for the healthy requirements of the people in such a climate The Hamilton Borough may depend upon it they will not he going far wrong, and will he adding the attractions of their town, by laying out some of its funds, in erecting really good swimming baths. Franc Tiredr.