f^:<*^^,

iS^'!--

K^i

H-!

\'!

T

JTALtuNlvei^SllY 4 PR 3 I jfic}

ti'

URRAR

f

^

CORRESPONDENCE

BETWEEN

The Rt. Rev. Bishop of Fond du Lac

AND

The Rev. the Rector of St. Patrick's
Church, Fond du Lac

« ^K

¦\v

Published IN THE DAILY COMMON
WEALTH, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin

Mnj9<^

\d03

A Correspondence

BETWEEN

The Rt. Rev. Bishop of Fond du Lac

AND

The Rev. the Rector of St. Patrick's Church
Fond du Lac

Published in
The Daily Commonwealth
Fond du Lac

An Eirenicon, or Olive-Branch

Many good Christian people will say about
this or like correspondences, "What a pity it is
that clergymen should indulge in such discussions.
It does no good. It does not convince anyone. It
only widens the breach between Christians. It
arouses hot, perhaps angry, feelings. It disturbs
the peace of the inner life. Let us live togther in
peace, without fault-finding criticisms!"
There is much of truth in all this. To a de
vout person, a controversy is always a painful
matter. The divisions in Christendom must be
weakening to Christianity, and painful to our
Lord. But we must remember that, as each one
must, as St. Paul declares, give a reason for the
faith that is in him, the duty of investigation rests
upon all. Our Lord bade His hearers search the
Scriptures, and see if these things He taught were
so. It will not therefore do for us, any more than
for the Jews, to say we were brought up in a cer
tain faith, and therefore wUl not inquire. What
ever the Holy Spirit has taught us by experience,
as for instance our conversion, if a Methodist, or
the Real Presence, if a Roman Catholic, we should
not reopen. But many questions which divide
Christendom, we should, in the spirit of charity,
be willing to investigate.

Ought we not at least to try to understand one
another ? Sad as are the divisions of Christians, is
it not likely that each body stands for some truth
or practice, which has either been overlooked, or
disproportionately stated? In the love of Christ
which should bind aU Christians together, we
should strive, not to exaggerate, but to minimize
our differences. We must remember that all who
are baptized are members of Christ, and so of His
Church. And as the Holy Spirit, given to all at
Pentecost, dwells in the whole body, we ought to
be willing to learn from one another.
Now we must all admit that Christ's Church,
which was founded at Jerusalem at Pentecost, and
has extended throughout the world, has become
rent. The Scriptures testify that this would come
to pass. The bones of the mystical Body would be
out of joint, the outer garment of Christ would be
rent, the net of the Church would be broken, the
Gospel ship would suffer shipwreck, the sun and
moon would be darkened, the stars would fall at
the end. The gates of Hell would not prevail
against it, but would wound it. We must face this
prophesied and existing fact. For the first 1000
years the Church remained practically united.
Thus Christ's prayer for unity and union was an
swered. Then the four Patriarchs in the East sep
arated from the one Patriarch, or Bishop of Rome,
in the West, and the two portions of the Church
have ever remained apart. The Roman Western

Church says to the East, "While we ack
nowledge your orders and sacraments, never
theless you are in schism, because you do
not recognize the Papal Supremacy." The
Eastern Church replies, "You set up a _ supreme
Pontiff. This you cannot prove from Holy Sci'ip-
ture. The great Pope Gregory condemned the
title as a profane thing. The traditions of the
Fathers we have received are against it. As for
being in schism, the old ecclesiastical maxim is,
' Schismaticus est qui schisma causat, non qui sep-
aret.' " (Not he who separates is the schismatic,
but he who causes the schism.) By demanding
unscriptural and uncanonical terms of commun
ion, such as the Supremacy and the new dogmas,
the East charges Rome with being schismatic.
Then came another division in the West be
tween the Anglican and the Latin Communions,
between the Church in England and the Roman
Church. Now it is most untrue and unscholarly
to say that the matrimonial adventures of King
Henry VIII were the cause of the Reformation in
England in the sixteenth century. The need of a
Reformation had been growing for some 200 years,
backed up by the College of Cardinals, and the
Council of Constance, and a general movement
throughout Europe. It eventuated in the Council
of Trent, which was a reforming Council, and in
the Reformation which took place by the provin-

cial synods of the Church in England. The
Church in England,— preserving her continuity,
the three holy orders of the ministry, the Sacra
mental system, the Catholic faith as held by the
Fathers, the holy Eucharistic sacrifice, and the al
lowed ancient ceremonial,— reformed herself. She
put the Mass into English, restored the sacrament
of marriage to the clergy, gave back to the laity
the completed sacrament in the Chalice of the
Precious Blood, preserved the ecclesiastical year,
and made sacerdotal confession voluntary. We
may be willing to say that there were some losses
as well as some gains. These losses she is gradu
ally removing.If Christian fellowship, which is most desir
able, is to be established between us, the unhistor-
ical statement that our Church was founded by
Henry YIII should cease. On our side, the old
Puritan mode of attack— which called Romans
idolaters, because they had images and pictures in
their churches ; were formalists, because they used
rosaries as helps to prayer ; were in error because
they believed in the Real Presence ; did not trust
in Christ's merits, because they went to confes
sion ; did not venture to read the Holy Scriptures,
—should cease. There are devout and holy Roman
Catholics, and blessed Religious, and Rome is the
Mother of many saints.
Corporate reunion, or the amalgamation of
the two bodies is now a practical impossibility.

The Papacy is controlled by the great Jesuit So
ciety, and cannot alter its policy, nor is it conceiv
able that the Anglican Bishops, having recovered
their freedom and full episcopal jurisdiction,
would ever again submit to the Papacy. It is as
impossible as that England should vote herself
back under the Tudor tyranny, or our blacks vote
to return to slavery. But it is possible there might
be a restored recognition, and a peace-loving
Christian fellowship. What stands in the way of
such restored recognition and fellowship is first
the non-recognition of our orders by Romans. We
are sure of them. Many Roman Catholic theolog
ians have acknowledged them, but a late papal
pronouncement was against their validity. We
know that this decision is not regarded by some
Roman Catholics as an infallible utterance. It is
thought that eventually it may be changed, just
as the decision of the Pope Eugenius, that the es
sence of the transmission of Holy Orders lay in
the delivery of the Instruments, has been recog
nized as erroneous. The feeling among Anglicans
is that the late papal opinion was obtained more
by political influence, to please a certain coterie
in England, than by the weight of theological ar
guments. The Pope signed an opinion which was
prepared for him, and was misled by certain mis
statements of facts. The decision was led to turn
on the form used in the Edwardine Ordinal. It
was stated that the only form used in the laying

on of hands by a Bishop at an ordination of
priests was "Receive the Holy Ghost." It was al
leged that the office for which the Holy Ghost was
given was not stated, but as a matter of fact the
office was stated again and again, and the
ordained was presented to receive the office
of priesthood, and when the Bishop's hands
were laid upon him, an exclusive work of
priesthood was designated. The words were,
"Receive the Holy Ghost. Whose sins thou
dost retain : they are retained. Be thou a faithful
dispenser of the Word of God, and of His Holy
Sacraments." Again: the Holy Father was mis
led by a false or an abbreviated quotation from the
BuU of Paul IV, which allowed Cardinal Pole to
recognize these ordinations underEdwardasvalid.
The condonation of ecclesiastical irregularities
was thus stated: Pole was to condone the irregu
larities of persons, who in a way which is "nulli-
ter and de facto obtained various grants, dispensa
tions, favors and indults concerning orders as well
as ecclesiastical benefices." Of this clause the
Holy Father had that part only which is italicised
laid before him. Now the adverb "nuUiter" as
its context clearly shows, had no reference what
ever to the validity of ordinations, but to the way
in which they were obtained. And Ducange, a
great authority in ecclesiastical Latin, gives as the
various meanings of "nulliter" in mediaeval La-

tin, "unjustly," " extra-legally, " "illegitimately."
The phrase means those who had been irregularly
yet def acto, ordained.
Frere, in his "Marian Reactions" (S. P. C,
K.) states as one of the results of his search into
every extant Diocesan registry of Queen Mary's
reign, that no record was found of deprivation for
nullity of orders.
As the Pope was misled thus by misrepresen
tation of fact, there is a possibility that his erron
eous decision might be reversed. Concerning
Archbishop Parker's consecration, no real objec
tion can be raised against it, as he was consecrated
by four bishops, two of whom had been conse
crated according to the form of the old Roman
Pontifical, and all of whom, when they conse
crated him, said the words of consecration. Their
"intention," as formally declared in the Ordinal
they used, was to continue the ancient orders. Par
ker succeeded Cardinal Pole, on his death, as
Archbishop of Canterbury. Habitual jurisdic
tion, as all theologians know, comes with conse
cration. Actual jurisdiction, which is the re
straint of it within certain limits, came in
the legal and orderly way of his recog
nition by his comprovincials, and without protest
on the part of any others. Archbishop Parker
was rightly consecrated and succeeded Pole. It
only harms Rome to deny our orders, and it would

10
be greatly to her advantage if she recognized
them. On the other hand, what stands in the way of
our submission to Rome is the papal monarchical
supremacy. It is stated that all executive and legis
lative power and jurisdiction is with the Pope. The
Bishops can only speak as he speaks, and they
hold their jurisdiction from him. Now the East
ern Churches, and we ourselves, and the Anglicans,
would probably be willing to accept a canonical
primacy, but not the medisevally developed and
monarchical one with its personal infallibility. We
believe that the power claimed is different in kind
from that which existed in early times. We know
how it grew up in the Middle Ages under the Feu
dal system, which it made use of, and the Forged
Decretals. We have on one side such Roman
Catholic trained scholars as Dollinger, those who
wrote the letters signed "Janus," Archbishop
Kenrick of St. Louis, Launoy the great
Galilean theologian, and others, who have
said, "The Supremacy cannot be proved from
Holy Scripture." Upon the spurious de
cretals was built up the great fabric of papal
supremacy over the different national churches, a
fabric which has stood after its foundation crum
bled beneath it. For no one has pretended to deny
during the last two centuries that the imposture
is too palpable for any but the most ignorant ages
to credit. And concerning jurisdiction, Bossuet

11
wrote, "That very late invention, that Bishops re
ceive their jurisdiction from the Pope, and are, as
it were, vicars of him, ought to be banished from
the Schools, as unheard of for twelve centuries."
In conclusion : our duty as Anglicans is clear
ly to remain where we are. We have the Catholic
faith and the Sacraments. It is ours to labour for
the regaining of anything we have lost. We can
wish well to our Roman brethren. Can they too
not labour for reform in their own body? Can
they not repudiate the doctrine of development
and Manning's position that appeal to history
was blasphemy against the Holy Ghost? Can
they not, as Catholics, return to the position of S.
Vincent de Lerins, and labour together with us
for the restoration of the Vincentian Rule of
Faith— "that is to be held which from the begin
ning, at all times, and by all, has been received?"
Would it not add greatly to their development
in America, if, as some of them wish, they
could substitute English for Latin in the
Mass? Might they not formally declare in
favor of Catherine of Sienna's doctrine of the joys
of the Middle state, instead of dwelling upon the
tortures of purgatorial fires to satisfy the justice
of God ? Could they not restore the ancient method
of giving the Blessed Sacrament in both kinds to
the laity? Could not the Sacrament of Marriage
be allowed the clergy, as it is already recognized
by Rome in uniat churches ? It is in pity and char-

12
ity we subjoin the following extract from the
Church Times, of Dec. 18th, 1908: "At an as
sembly of the Bishops of Latin America, held in
Rome in 1899, statistics were submitted to Pope
Leo XIII, which showed that the secular clergy
numbered about 18,000 ; of these 3,000 were mar
ried men living in wedlock ; about 4,000 were liv
ing in open concubinage ; and about 1,500 were re
garded as open to the charge of immorality of an
even worse description. (See acta et Decreta,
Concil. Plenar. Americae Latinae, Romae, 1900.) "
No honorable man. Christian or otherwise,
thinks hardly of these unfortunate clergy, but
condemns the system. May God bring about a Re
form in Rome and may God in His mercy, draw
all parts of the separated body together, if not
outwardly, yet inwardly, in Christ.
C. C. Fond du Lac.

13

REV. FR. J. J. KEENAN CRITICISES
BISHOP GRAFTON'S PAMPHLET
ON "PRO-ROMANISM"
Fond du Lac, Wis., Nov. 19, 1908.
Editor Daily Commonwealth: —
We have had profound religious peace in this
community for many years, each one offering his
devotions to his Heavenly Father as his conscience
dictated to him, and an entire generation of our
citizens have gone from Fond du Lac to the throne
of their Creator without a ripple of religious
strife or contention. Our good Bishop Grafton
must have had a twinge of rheumatism or a kink
in his brain for he has become fidgety of late, go
ing around with a chip on his shoulder, and pub
lishing spurts in the press on a variety of old re
ligious subjects that have been thrashed over, time
and again, in each generation for the past three
hundred years. Up to the present time I thought
the bishop was sincere in his belief and actions,
but from his late writings I can see his duplicity
and insincerity.
He has lately issued a pamphlet called "Pro-
Romanism," in which he severely scores the clergy
and sisters of his church who left him to become
members of the Catholic church. The bishop
shows anything but a Christian spirit when he

14
compares their leaving the Anghcan communion
to "squeezing out pus"— that is the expression he
applies to his own old friends and associates who
had labored with him sincerely for a number of
years. If we had a choir boy who would use such
a degraded comparison about respectable people,
we would box his ears and make him do a good,
long penance on his knees.
Some of the objections he cites against the
Catholic church are so trite and have been an
swered so often that I cannot conceive that the
bishop is ignorant of the explanation. Take his
objection in regard to what a certain catechism
says pertaining to papal infalUbility. The bishop
knows right well that that catechism was pub
lished before the promulgation of that doctrine,
and prior to that no one was bound to accept it.
What gives the bishop a nightmare in partic
ular is the thought of the Pope. He is worried
that the Pope gets so much money and that he
wields so great a power. In every century, certain
persons have been affected by brain storms at the
mere mention of the Pope. In England some cen
turies back, "To hell with the pope," was a cus
tomary salutation among a certain class of the peo
ple. We can well understand why Bishop Graf
ton is disturbed at the mention of the supreme
head of the Catholic Church. The Holy Father,
the successor of St. Peter to whom Christ said,
"Whatever you shall bind upon earth, shall be

15
bound also in heaven," has decreed that the orders
of the Anglican church are invalid, that the clergy
of that church cannot validly confer the Sacra
ments; that is, consecrate and absolve, which are
the chief powers of the priesthood. This decree
of the Pope, no matter how drastic it may appear,
is more permanent and enduring than the laws of
the Medes and Persians. Bishop Grafton should
remember that his ancestors for many centuries
prayed for and helped to support the Pope as all
Christendom did. The last Peter's pence sent by
England for that purpose amounted to forty thou
sand pounds sterhng. Whatever mite the fore
fathers of the Bishop gave was included in that
sum. This proves one thing definitely, that they
were at one time good Catholics and loved the
Pope. At the commencement of our Civil War there
was considerable excitement and prejudice against
the Holy Father, as some were stating in the pub
lic press that he was favoring the Southern Con
federacy. At that time there was held a mass
meeting in Amory hall. Among the speakers was
our honored feUow citizen. General E. S. Bragg,
who addressed the assembly. In speaking of the
feeling which existed, he used about the following
words: "Fellow citizens, the old man over in
Rome is not going to injure us." We would like
to apply the same words to Bishop Grafton. The
Pope is not going to injure the Bishop. It is very

16
probable he has never heard of him or his diocese,
but he has to defend the unity of faith throughout
the world. It is wonderful how the grace of God
works in different persons. About a year ago a
gentleman came to me to get a book that would ex
plain the Catholic faith. I gave him a copy of the
same catechism that Bishop Grafton criticises.
Last week I received a letter from him thanking
me and stating that on next Sunday he was to re
ceive his first Holy Communion. That man used
the same catechism the Bishop is criticising. The
Grace of God directed one— pride deterred the
other. In closing his pamphlet, the Bishop states
that he prays frequently for the union of all Chris
tians. Why does he not set the example? The
Catholic church did not separate from Anglican
ism, but vice versa— the mountain did not go to
Mahomet. Every one knows that the Episcopal or Angli
can church originated with Henry the Eighth,
king of England. I know right well that most of
the adherents are ashamed of its origin, but let
them shuffle, shift, and distort matters as they
please, they cannot change the plain and accepted
statements of history. If we consider the circum
stances, we can more readily understand the hate
ful events that took place. History tells us that
King Henry was six feet and four inches in height
and four feet broad— about twenty-five cubic feet

17
of animal. This monster fell in love with a maiden
attached to the court— the maiden's name was
Anne Boleyn. Although the king had been mar
ried nearly twenty years, he had the effrontery
to ask the pope to dissolve his legitimate marriage
that he might be united to young Anne.
Had the Father of Christendom consented to
that foul request the Catholic church would long
ago have been wrecked on the rocks of human pas
sion. Besides being ashamed of their origin the
Anglican body is afraid of history and truth. As
the writer was entering Westminster Abbey some
years ago, there was a fakir at the door calling out
"Buy a history of the abbey." I asked him when
that history began according to the pamphlet he
was selling. He answered about 1630. I told him
that the abbey was erected more than a thousand
years before that date, and I did not wish any gar
bled statement of historical facts. Let us come
back to Henry and view the trend of events after
the Pope had refused a divorce. Kings are al
ways surrounded by fiatterers and courtiers who
will do anything to gain favor in the eyes of their
sovereign. These say to the king, "Are you not
master ; pay no attention to the Pope, be your own
Pope, and marry the person of your choice."
Henry followed that advice, cast aside the author
ity of the church, cut himself off from the See of
Rome, and became his own pope. With that step

18
taken began the Episcopal, Anglican, or what you
want to call it, church.
I don't want to go thrashing old straw, Pusey
and the tractarian movement are dead. What
have we got to do with them? They never had an
inception worth investigating.
I would make this suggestion to the Bishop.
In his "Pro-Romanism" he states a dozen sub
jects he is disgruntled about. I wish he would
write on one of those subjects each week in the
public press, state his views and objections, and I
will answer the following week.
FATHER KEENAN.

19

THE BISHOP THANKS FATHER KEENAN
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
Fond du Lac, Wis., Nov. 20, 1908.
Editor Daily Commonwealth: —
Among the clergy of our city none stands
higher in public esteem than Father Keenan, and
I thank him for affording me by his communica
tion the opportunity of presenting him publicly
my sincere and respectful regards. He proposes
we should enter into a discussion together. I am
willing to'do so, but I think it would tend more to
general edification if you, Mr. Editor, would ask
one clergyman of each of the religious bodies to
give on Saturdays a short summary of their re
spective church's government and belief. We do
not know each other well enough, and that keeps
us apart. Father Keenan censures me for breaking the
peace which has so happily been maintained in our
good city among Christians. But while writing a
pamphlet chiefly for my own people, I have not
written to the public newspapers save in reply to
Roman attacks.
Father Keenan censures the use of q,n expres
sion of mine and from his own viewpoint he is in
the right. But I had knowledge, which he could
not have, concerning the conduct of the seceders ;

20
yet because I deemed it harsh and unfair, I with
drew it, and it is not to be found in the pamphlet
he criticises. He thinks I am disturbed by the papal de
cision on our orders. On the contrary, I was much
pleased with it, for to us Catholics who know that
we possess Orders and Sacraments, it was a dem
onstration that the Pope was not infallible. A
Pope once decided that the essence of ordination
lay in the giving of the Chalice and Paten to the
ordained. But this decree has been set aside, and
for one reason, because it would have invalidated
early Roman Orders themselves.
Some years ago, Roman writers used to bring
up the fable called the "Nag's Head Consecra
tion" of Archbishop Parker. But they have given
it up with regret that it was ever used. A like
change might take place concerning the present
papal decision, for an able religious Roman
priest told me it was not ex-cathedra or infallible.
Father Keenan thinks it will stand better than the
law of the Medes and Persians. But as the laws
of the Medes and Persians have long ago passed
away, so may this decision. It does not affect us.
God acknowledges the validity of our Orders and
Sacraments, and we prefer to take God's testi
mony to that of the Pope.
My reference to Keenan 's Catechism in which
it stated in the last century that the papal infalli
bility was no dogma of the church was to show

21
(which Father Keenan admits) that the papal in
fallibility was not till 1870 a dogma of his church.
Believing as I do as a Catholic that the faith was
once for all delivered, to be indeed capable of defin
itions, as was our Lord's divinity, but not of ad
ditions, I can not accept as a Catholic, the eleva
tion of opinion into dogma. I would here put in
evidence the great book called "Medisevalism"
by George Tyrrell, twenty-six years a Roman
priest in the Jesuit society, and I would utter the
word St. Augustine heard and which led to his
conversion, "Lege tolle."
Father Keenan reminds me that our Lord
said to St. Peter (S. Matt. 16.19:) "Whatsoever
thou shalt bind on earth shaU be bound in
Heaven." This is very true. But it is also true
that He said (S. Matt. 18.18) the same to all the
Apostles. In which case it does not seem to be any
solitary gift to Peter. Indeed it seems impossible,
if any such was given, and transmitted to the
Roman see, that, on a matter so vital to the church,
no statement is made in Holy Scripture that Peter
ever went there. We are told that St. Paul was
bidden to go to Rome, why not Peter if our salva
tion is dependent on our being under the jurisdic
tion of that see ?
I can regret along with the Father the evil
spirit which led men in past time to say, "To hell
with the pope," and I believe he will agree with
me in also regretting the same evil spirit mani-

22
f ested in our day by a Roman Cathohc priest who
said "Hell will not be full till all the Paulist Fath
ers get there." The remark is sad as showing
such a lack of harmony.
Father Keenan says, ' ' The Anglican is afraid
of history and truth ! ' ' This is an amusing and ex
traordinary assertion. Why, the Reformation
was based on an historical appeal to authority.
There has been no church that has produced so
many and great church historians. These writers
have shown again and again that the Roman
church has departed from the ancient faith. Our
rule of faith has been, not the Roman one, what
the Pope decrees, but the Catholic one of St. Vin
cent de Lerins, "that which from the beginning at
all times and by all has been received," is to be
held. The main point in Father Keenan 's commun
ication is to be found in his statement that our
church was established by King Henry VIII, who
broke with the Pope because the Pope would not
grant him a divorce from Queen Catharine of
Arragon, It will really help on Christian charity
if the intelligent Roman laity will disabuse them
selves of these false notions. King Henry was a
bad man, but he was no worse nor as bad as many
popes have been. Baronius, the Roman Cathohc
historian, said: "In this century the abomination
of desolation was seen in the Temple of the Lord.
How hideous was the face of the Roman church

23
when filthy and impudent and bad women gov
erned all at Rome and changed sees at their pleas
ure, gave away bishoprics, placed their gallants
in the see of St. Peter." Of John XII, it is writ
ten (see Mihnan, Lat. Christianity, III Vol., p,
181) that he was guilty of adultery, incest, and
made the Lateran palace a brothel. Of Benedict
IX, it is said that "though a boy in his teens, his
vices were the vices of a man, and of a man utterly
lost to shame. He perpetrated adultery, murder,
and every kind of abomination with impunity."
(Reichel's Middle Ages, page 121.) It is impos
sible, says Tyrrell, that the knowledge and infal
lible interpretation of tradition should be lodged
in an utterly ignorant boy Pope like John XII or
Benedict IX.
Now concerning Henry VIII. 's separation
from Queen Catharine, the story is interesting, but
in no way reflects credit on the papacy, as Father
Keenan seems to think. The facts are these:
Henry's elder brother Arthur was married to
Catharine. Arthur died, and King Henry VII
applied to the Pope, Julius II, for a dispensation
to allow his son Henry to marry his deceased
brother's widow. Archbishop Warham protested
against this marriage on the ground that it was
contrary to divine law as set forth in Leviticus,
ch. xviii. But the Pope granted the dispensation
and Henry, after some hesitation, married. The
king had been trained for the church and was a

24
theologian, and came to have scruples, especially
as the French king objected to a matrimonial al
liance with his daughter. It was before he saw
Anne Boleyn that he professed to be disturbed by
the connection. Subsequently he applied for a
divorce. The Pope, Clement VII., according to
Henry's letter to him, seems to have promised it.
Henry, when he wrote to him, says: "We should
have wished that all things should have been so
expedited as corresponded to our expectations, not
rashly conceived, but according to your promises ;
but we have been so often deceived by your Holi
ness' promises that no dependence can be placed
upon them. ' '
Clement proposed to try the case by a Lega-
tine Commission in England. (See the Divorce
of Catharine of Arragon, Froude, pages 67, 69,
84, 85.) But while Pope Clement gave his legates a
special commission in which he declared the mar
riage of Catharine and Henry void and ordered
them to give judgment for the King, at the time
notifying the King what he had done in the mat
ter, he at the same time gave the legates secret in
structions to burn the decretal letter, and on no
account to act on it. But the paper was not burnt,
but shown to some of the King's councillors,
whereupon the Pope, learning of this, was very
angry, and said, among other things : "They can
do as they please, provided they do not make me

25
responsible." The conduct of the Pope was cer
tainly dishonorable. The trial before the legates
having failed of arriving at a decision. King
Henry was advised to appeal to the doctors of the
universities throughout Europe for an opinion
whether the Pope had the right to set aside such a
divine law or not. They almost universally de
cided he had not. The case was then tried in the
Ecclesiastical Court in England, and by Bishops
in communion with Rome. They decided against
the Pope's dispensatory power, and consequently
that there had been no valid marriage between
King Henry and Catharine. As there had been
no marriage there was no necessity to apply for a
divorce from it, and so the King was free to marry.
If the account reflects no credit on the King, it
certainly puts the Pope in a bad light.
Now as to the founding of the Anglican
church. King Henry had as much to do with it as
Pontius Pilate with the founding of Christianity.
A short story of it is this:— It was founded in
Britain, apart fromRome,in early centuries. "The
British Church," says Blackstone (IVch8) "by
whomsoever founded was a stranger to Rome."
Pope Gregory sent in 597 a missionary, named
Augustine, thither, but it was not till a century
after that the old British Church and the Roman
Mission were united. The British Church came
into communion with the Roman one but the Pap
acy was not then what it subsequently was in the

26
Middle Ages. The Papacy developed, it is well
known, under the feudal system, and the influence
of the forged decretals. When the Papacy became
oppressive and tyrannical the English Church re
nounced the Pope's jurisdiction, and resumed its
old independence. It took the same position
towards the Papacy that the Eastern Churches had
taken. No new church was started, but the old re
formed. The proof of this is seen in the Acts of
Parliament where there is no word to the effect
that any change had taken place in the identity of
the church, and in her statements made again and
again that she did not intend to depart from the
Catholic Faith.
In the great statute 25 Henry Vlll.-Chl,
it is stated that "nothing shall be interpreted or
expounded to vary in anything concerning the
very article of the Catholic Faith in Christen
dom." "We must assume," says the great his
torian Freeman, "because the facts of history
compel us to assume, the absolute identity of the
Church of England after the Reformation with
the Church of England before it." "Nothing was
further from the minds of Henry VIII or Eliza
beth than the thought that either of them was do
ing anything new. Neither of them ever thought
for a moment of establishing a new church. ' ' Glad
stone said, "I can find no trace of the opinion
which is common in the minds of unthinking per
sons that the Roman Catholic Church was abol-

27
ished in England at the time of the Reformation
and that a Protestant Church was put in its place. ' '
Again, "the Church of England," he says, "is the
same church that existed from the beginning.
There was no new church in the reign of Henry
VIII." The great judge. Sir Robert Phillimore
ruled, "It is not only a religious but a legal error
to say that a new church was introduced into the
realm at the time of the Reformation. It is no
less the language of Our Law than Our Divinity
that the old church was restored and not a new one
instituted." (See Anglican Brief, Moore & Brinck-
man, page 428. It is certainly very significant
that out of about 5,000 clergy who had been under
Queen Mary, on the accession of Queen Elizabeth
and the putting forth of our Prayer Book, all but
about 200 beneficed clergy conformed. They
would not have done so had they thought a new
church was being formed.
We may now ask what is the origin of the
present Roman Catholic Church in England? No
division took place till the reign of Queen Eliza
beth in the year 1570. Then the Pope called on
those who were his followers to withdraw. A small
body went from the old established church and
formed a body by themselves. They had no settled
bishops under ordinary jurisdiction, and it was
not till 1850 that the present Roman dioceses in
England were established. Thus Rome in Eng
land went out from the church and the Italian

28
Mission was founded there. Humphrey says: "We
are a new mission straight from Rome." (Angli
can Brief— Moore & Brinckman, pages 479 to
483.) "The Roman Hierarchy now in England is
confessedly a modern body created by Pope Pius
IX., 1850." We hope these statements will refute
the notion that the Anglican Church was founded
by King Henry VIII.
My good friend, Father Keenan, perhaps mis
understands me or he would not think me insin
cere. I recognize my littleness, my incapacity and
my feebleness of attainment in sanctity. It is of
little account what I am, but I believe I am a
Christian and a Cathohc. An evangelical Chris
tian, believing and trusting in Christ's merits only
for salvation, and a liberal Catholic, holding as
faith that only which is certified by the universal
consent and experience of Christendom, and rele
gating in charity all other matters to the realm of
allowed opinion. C. C. Fond du Lac.

Fond du Lac, Wis., Nov. 28, 1908.
Editor Daily Commonwealth:—
In the friendly discussion between Bishop
Grafton and myself, I wish to thank him for the
genial spirit and kindly disposition he displays. I
surmise that if the Bishop did not hold as honor
able and lucrative a position as he does, I could

29
without difficulty make a good real Catholic of
him. I was particularly pleased with his sugges
tion that the clergy of each church in the city
write an account of the origin or founder of their
church which will lead to a more general under
standing, and at the same time be instructive for
the people. This can be done without any jarring
or contentions, and I think this will be the first
city in the whole country that ever attempted and
carried out such an idea. The Bishop suggested
this and I trust he will write to the other clergy
to carry out the plan.
I do not know whether the Bishop intended
the few remarks he made in his last communica
tion concerning the origin of the Anglican church
as his subscription to this plan. If so, he is alto
gether too vague, too indefinite. Each church has
originated in some place and by some individual
or society. We do not want any mythology or
fairy tales. We have had definite history ever
since the time the Savior came on earth and in
recording the existence of any society we desire
historic dates. For similar reasons, I have criti
cised some so-called Catholic shrines : for instance
St. Anne in Canada and "Holy Hill" in this
state. I can not find any valid data why they
should be patronized as special places of devo
tion. I would advise the Bishop to write to the
Propaganda in Rome, where he can obtain more

30
reliable data and learn much more about the ear
ly history of Christianity in England than he has
furnished. Let us take the Bishop's account. He quotes
a certain writer called Freeman, as follows: "We
must assume the absolute identity of the Church
of England after the Reformation to be the same
as before." Is that the best authority you can
produce in an all-important matter like the
founding of Christianity? If the Church of
Christ rested on "assumption" how long would
it last? This "assumption" is the first and about
the only reason he gives for the foundation of the
Anglican church.
Let me make a suggestion. Bishop. The
Catholic Church is much older than the Anglican
and she has preserved the account that Joseph of
Arimathea, who assisted at the burial of Jesus,
with twelve of his disciples were the first to intro
duce Christianity into England, which in the time
of Pope Eleutherius had spread so much that at
the request of King Lucius he sent them Fuga-
cius and Darnian, who baptized the King and
many of his subjects, consecrated many churches
and established several bishoprics. Constantine
and the sainted Helena who lived about this lime
and shed so much luster on the church and state,
were faithful and obedient children under the
Holy Father at Rome.
Some of the authorities the Bishop quoted

31
are not of a reliable character. His chief histor
ian appears to be Froude whose history has been
proven to be full of errors and misrepresenta
tions. He is the man, when challenged to a joint
debate in New York a few years back, ran away
to England, and since that time made no public
display of himself in this country. Ex-priest
Crowley of Chicago, is another one whose works
he commends to be read. The old proverb:
"Show me with whom you go and I will tell you
what you are, ' ' is true aU the time.
When the Bishop stated that "no new relig
ion was founded in England" after the defection
of Henry VIIL, I lost my breath and was so
amazed that it took some time to get over my as
tonishment. The Bishop might safely make a
statement of that kind to a class of new beginners
in history, or to the Indians in the Oneida settle
ment, and it would be accepted, but in a city like
ours, where we have a noted high school and a
number of learned editors, clergy, professors,
lawyers, and a public of more than ordinary in
telligence, for the Bishop to come out with a flat-
footed statement that there was no new religion
founded at that time, is so brash— so jarring,
that I cannot find words to express my amaze
ment. Bishop, put your hand on your heart, and
say that you meant that, and see if it don't gag
you. Why, Bishop, there were twenty or more
new sects started just about that time. The

32
church established by law, which was one of them,
had an act of parliament passed which forbade
any one to write or preach in defense of the
Catholic church, and severe penalties were im
posed upon any one doing so for nearly two cen
turies. This accounts to a great extent for the
fact that English literature is so permeated with
mis-representation and prejudice against that
church. History tells us for not conforming to that
new church, there were put to death two Cardi
nals, three Archbishops, eighteen Bishops and
Archdeacons, five hundred priests, sixty super
iors of religious houses, fifty canons, twenty-nine
peers, three hundred and sixty-six knights and an
immense number of the gentry and people. This
was all done to establish a new religion. Go
through England, Ireland and Scotland today,
and note the vast number of churches, convents
and monasteries in ruins. The religious were
driven out or butchered and their possessions
given to the adherents of the new cult— what can
we think of the Bishop's statement, "There was
no new church established at this time."
Let me advert to some statements of the
Bishop. "God," he says, "acknowledges the val
idity of our orders." What proof do you give
for that statement. Bishop? On what occasion
has the miracle taken place? He likewise speaks
of priests who stated to him that the decree of the

33
Pope concerning Anglican orders is not binding,
and something about the Paulists and hell. Those
priests were jollying you. Bishop, and their pri
vate opinion has no weight with us.
We have not time on this occasion to com
ment on what you wrote about the Popes. We
shall cover those points when we write in a future
communication on the Papacy.
FATHER KEENAN.

Bishop's House, Dec. 2, 1908.
Editor Daily Commonwealth: —
First let me thank Father Keenan for the
Christian spirit of his reply. I am sure he will let
me point out some minor mistakes into which he
has inadvertently fallen.
He objects to my quoting Froude 's History,
which I did not quote, but his book "Catherine of
Aragon," which was written some thirty years
after his history. No one has disputed his facts
concerning the Pope's equivocations in the mat
ter of Henry VIIL, and which are proved from
other sources. The Pope, instead of being a
champion of the sanctitv of marriage, in that case
appears to have been influenced by mere worldly
considerations. He allowed of the divorce of Na
poleon and Josephine on very trivial and unscrip
tural grounds and has violated Scripture in other
cases.

34
The Father says I quote from a certain
writer called "Freeman." I do so, for Professor
Freeman of Oxford University, England, is re
garded as one of the first historians of the last
century, and is esteemed a scholar of great au
thority. But Freeman was not my sole authority.
I also quoted a great statesman, Gladstone, also a
celebrated ecclesiastical jurist. Sir Robert Phil
limore, and I might have added to these, to show
that no new church was made at the time of Hen
ry VIIL, the testimony of a distinguished and
intellectual unitarian. In his Hibbert Lectures,
Dr. Charles Beard says, "There is no point at
which it can be said, here the old church ends,
here the new begins,"
Father Keenan censures me for quoting the
Rev. Jer. Crowley's book. Father Crowley was
formerly, and is now I believe, a Roman Cathohc
priest of Chicago diocese. His book contains
an account of the bad Popes, John XL and XIL,
John XXII,, Urban V., Pius II., Innocent VIIL,
Alexander VI., Calixtus III., ending up with Car
dinal Antonelli, who, he says, when dying, refused
the sacraments, sajdng he never believed in their
efficacy. Many scandals are exposed in this book,
especially some which have arisen in America,
and it is prefaced by an endorsement of Crowley
by the Most Rev. Archbishop Katzer, so I natur
ally concluded I was warranted in quoting from
it

35
I quite agree with Father Keenan in saying
that when it comes to history we don't want fairy
tales. Strange enough, he begins with a recitation
of two fairy tales respecting the foundation of his
church in Britain. The story that ooseph of
Arimathea introduced Christianity into England
and that the King Lucius sent over to Pope Eleu
therius asking him to send missionaries, are both
now rejected fairy tales. Modem scholarship
with its new critical tests, has destroyed the cred
ibility of these stories which were told us in our
youth. (See Early Eng. His, by Prof. Bright,
the great Oxford Historian, p. 2.) The story of
Joseph of Arimathea, is he says, "a beautiful
mediaeval romance. The statement about Eleu
therius is traceable to Rome in the fifth century,
and is evidently unhistoric. The historian Bur
ton denounces it as a fable." We quote also
Cutt's "Turning Points of Enghsh History," p.
12, who says: "The whole story rests on the inter
polated note in the catalogue of Roman Pontiffs
(it was this that deceived Bede) and cannot be
received as historical." In Short's History of
England, page 3, he states that "so many improb
abilities have been engrafted on this narrative
that the whole tale has with much reason been
questioned." No scholarship of the present day
believes in the legends of Joseph of Arimathea or
in that of Eleutherius. We must put away these
fairy tales.

36
Do you not also see, dear Father Keenan, if
you rely on these legends for proving the foun
dation of your church in Britain, in what a di
lemma it places you? History tells us that Pope
Pius IV. in 1570 called on his followers to leave
the Church of England, which they did, but they
did not become a regular diocesan church organ
ization till 1850! So either the present Roman
Church in England, is as Cardinal Newman said,
"a new one," having no connection with the an
cient church founded by Joseph or Lucius, or the
ancient one came to an end, and so the gates of
HeU prevailed against it. While the Roman
church today in England is thus "a new mission
straight from the Vatican" as the Jesuit Father
Humphreys says, the Church of England is the
ancient church, only separated from the jurisdic
tion of the monarchical Papacy and reformed. It
is the old Catholic Church.
Doing away with fairy tales, and turning to
sohd historical facts, we find that the Church or
Christianity was founded in Britain in the second
or third century, for we find the names of three
British Bishops as present at the Council of Aries
in France in 814. The Church was thus founded
with its Episcopal government and held the Ni-
cene Faith, as its presence at subsequent councils
proves (Bright, Early English History, page 12)
In 597, Pope Gregory sent over the monk Augus
tine as a missionary. A conference took place be-

37
tween himself and the British bishops. He re
quired them to give up all forms and customs
which differed from Rome. This they refused to
do and replied they had their own Archbishop.
(Parry's Epitome of Anglican Church History,
page 16. Cutt's "Augustine of Canterbury," 143.)
This goes to show the independence of the ancient
British Church of Rome. Eventually, when
the Heptarchy passed away, and England became
united under one king, the two communions were
united, the Church regarding Rome as the first
bishop in Christendom by way of honor, and the
western patriarch, but not regarding him as su
preme, the source of all jurisdiction and a mon
arch as he subsequently claimed to be.
We believe it to be clearly shown by history
that the Papacy developed, in the Middle Ages,
from a patriarchate into a supremacy especially
under Pope Gregory or Hildebrand, and Innocent
III. As the patriarchate had arisen from con
formity of the church to the system of the Roman
Empire, so the supremacy came about through its
conformity to the feudal system. Its power in
creased by virtue of the Feudal system, and also
by the forged decretals. There were two sets of
these forged papers, one in 850, the other in 1000,
and by them great theologians, like Thomas
Aquinas and Melchor Carni, in the west of
Europe, were deceived. I fear the Roman Catholic
laity do not realize these facts. They are not fairy

38
tales. The teaching of the forged decretals en
tered into canon law in 1140 and was made part of
it by the great jurist Gratian. These letters were
proved to be forgeries, and have been admitted to
be such by the Roman Catholic authorities, and
by the Pope himself. But the Papal power, gained
by them, continues to exist till this day, just as an
arch built upon a temporary scaffolding remains
when the framework is put aside. If the su
premacy and monarchical power of the Papacy
were of divine origin, would God have need of
forgeries and man's lies to establish it? This is
a very bad fairy tale indeed.
Father Keenan says it took his breath away
on reading my statement that no new church or
religion was founded in England at the time of
the Reformation. This I believe to be a cold and
solid fact. Sects arose in Queen Elizabeth's time,
but the old English Catholic church continued.
There was a great difference between the Reform
Protestant Movement on the Continent and the
reform in England. In England, the church her
self, through her bishops and convocation and in
a legal way, reformed herself. The protest in
England was first directed against the usurped
Papal jurisdiction, then against the unhistorical
Catholicity of the Middle Ages, not against the
ancient Cathohc Ministry and belief. In one of
the great anti-Papal Statutes, 25 Henry VIIL, it
was set forth that by the changes in the relations

39
with Rome, "It was not intended that the Church
of England should be regarded as declining or
varying from the Catholic Church and faith of
Christendom." (Anglican Brief, page 364.)
No new church has been started, but in the
way of reform, she translated the old office books,
and put them, as St. Paul says, in a language un
derstood by the people. She did the same thing
with the Communion service, which in the Prayer
Book of King Edward VL, put forth 1549, "she
called "The Mass." She restored the giving of
the chalice to the laity, as has been the Catholic
custom for 1,000 years. In her discipline, she re
tained the three ancient orders of the ministry:—
Bishops, Priests and Deacons, and formally de
clared in her Prayer Book, that as they had been,
they were to be "continued." She maintained the
necessity of Episcopal ordinations by accepting
the ordinations of Roman priests when they come
to us, but requiring ordination of sectarians,
however eminent they may be. And in our office
for the sick, we pray that we may die "in the
communion of the Catholic Church."
The bishops stated in 1662 that the church
had been careful to put nothing into the Liturgy
but that which is "either the Word of God, or had
generally been received in the Catholic Church."
See Anghcan Brief (Moore & Brinckman.) In
her canon the church said it was far from the
purpose of the Church of England to forsake and

40
reject the churches of Italy, France, Spain and
Germany, in all things which they held or prac
tised, save as they departed from ancient cus
toms." (Canons of the Church of England, page
45.) She aUowed of the marriage of the clergy,
made confession no longer obligatory, but volun
tary as souls might feel the need. But that no
new religion was made was seen by the great fact
that the large number of the clergy who had been
under Queen Mary, when the new Prayer Book,
as it now is, was put forth by Queen Elizabeth,
accepted it and only about 200 or 300 of the bene
ficed clergy of the 9,400 refused to conform.
(Frere, Ch. His. Socy. Series, page 111.) "It
was computed that only 177 or about 250 (accord
ing to Cardinal Allen) refused the Oath." More
over, and perhaps a Roman Catholic will be con
vinced by this, the Pope himself, according to a
statement by Chief Justice Coke made at Norwich
and found in Colliers' History, was willing to ac
cept what was done, provided the queen would
acknowledge his supremacy.
Again:— I stated on the subject of our orders
that God had recognized them, and His authority
was more satisfactory than that of the late Pope,
whose decision, contrary to what Bossuet, and
many Roman theologians had said, was evidently
a political one. God has put His seal upon the
validity of our orders and sacraments by the grace

41
known to be given through them. I have, in my
long life, seen many come from the world under
their influence and been spiritually changed.
Upon those who have left our church for Rome,
there has been seen no mark of increased sanctity.
A number have gone back to the world, some of
the ablest returned, and it could not be said of
those who remained "Romans that the hves, such
as those of Manning and Newman were any holier
than Pusey and Carter and a whole host of Angli
cans. The Holy Eucharist has been accompanied
by miracles of healing, but the great spiritual mir
acle of the transformation of life is conclusive of
the validity of our sacraments. Lacordaire said
'the fairest fruit of the Catholic church was the
reUgious life," and without valid sacraments it
could not be sustained. But in all its beauty and
supernatural power it is with us.
In respect of persecutions. Father Keenan
cites no authority for the long hst which he gives.
Unless we know the author of the statement he
quotes and the names of the two cardinals, two
archbishops and others who were put to death in
the times of Kings Henry or Edward or Queen
Elizabeth, we must, as prudent people, hold his
assertion as made unproved. We, however, admit
that the property of the monasteries was taken
away, the like of which has been done by every
Roman Catholic country in Europe, and that

42
wicked persecutions were made by Henry VIIL,
who put to death persons for not believing in
Transubstantiation, or for not accepting his mar
riage with Anne Boleyn. The number of execu
tions of Romanists, under King Henry was 82.
See Galton, "Attitude Towards Roman Catho
lics," page 88. ,
On the other hand, we ? must remember the
persecutions made by her who has received the
name of "Bloody" Queen Mary. Three hundred
persons were burnt in her short reign of about
five years and four months, and we cannot forget
the sack of Cesena by Cardinal Robert, who be
came Pope Clement VII., when thousands were
put to death amidst rape and bloodshed which
even shocked those times. (Mil. His. Lat. Chris.
vol. VII., p. 222 ; also Creighton, Papacy, vol. I, p.
65.) Nor must we omit the awful massacre of St.
Bartholomew's day, for however politics may
have entered into it, the Pope struck off a medal
in its honor and Rome rang the bells of the
churches with joy. The history of the Inquisition
in Spain reveals an awful condition of cruelty
and persecution and tyrannv, and the scenes de
scribed at the opening of the Inquisition prison in
Rome, when, in our day, the inmates became free,
are most pathetic.
The fact is, to the disgrace of Christianity,
all parties have presecuted in defiance of our
Lord's rebuke to St. John: "Ye know not

43
what spirit ye are of," but while Protestantism
of modern times has openly regretted this spirit,
we find no official acknowledgement of guilt on the
part of Rome, and we have personal knowledge
that many of the Jesuits today defend it.
Then as to our belief: we are Cathohcs rest
ing on the broad platform of Catholicity. Our
Lord said, "Hear the Church," and we believe
this to be a safe and prudent rule. But he also
forbade His people to follow any one man and
take him for their master, however able he might
be. This has been the source of all heresies- and
schisnas. Now the modern Roman system requires the
laity to believe the priests, and the priests the
bishops, and the bishops to speak "in union with
the Pope," so the foundation of the Roman Rule
of Faith is the Papacy. While, therefore, I am a
Catholic, beheving in the teaching of the universal
Church, you, dear Father Keenan, are a Papist.
Thank you sincerely for your loving regard for
me, and desire I should be a real Catholic, To re
turn the compliment, I desire that you may be
come, not a better Christian, for I don't think you
can become that, but less of a Papist, and more
fully a Catholic.
The good Father seems to imply I am held
where I am by my "lucrative" position! When I
was converted, as a young man at Harvard, I gave
myself entirely to the service of Christ and hu-

44
manity, determining to part with everything, save
what was necessary for shelter, food and raiment.
With all my imperfections, I have so continued to
this day. I can only say to good Father Keenan,
I am sure he will regard it as private and confi
dential, that my present salary as bishop is $300 a
year! I don't know what Father Keenan 's is. But
will he swap ? C, C. Pond du Lac,

Editor Daily Commonwealth : —
In reply to Bishop Grafton's communication,
I desire to thank him for the generous and kindly
remarks he bestows upon the writer.
Our discussion is becoming too scattered, we
cover too much ground at one time. We could
both keep quoting so-called authorities from now
till the crack of doom, or, until the editors and
general public, wearied by monotonous quotations,
that they do not often understand, would at last
exclaim : "Why don't they give us a rest! Get
the hook!" At this time I shall touch upon some of the
points of the Bishop's last article. Of course, he
has thus far quoted only Anglican authorities
among whom me may include ex-priest Crowley.
It is imti-ue, according to the words of Archbishop
Katzer himself, that he ever gave his approval to
Crowlev's works.

45
The main object of this discussion is to learn
where the Episcopal or Anglican Church origin
ated and by whom it was begun. History says it
commenced at the time when Henry VIII. left the
Catholic Church when excommunicated by the
Pope. Our good Bishop Grafton objects to this
and he takes us back to a synod of jangling bish
ops in the fourth century, who were mostly Arians,
The reason the Bishop selects that assemblage of
church men is because there were a couple of
bishops from England assisted at the synod and
from that semi-Arian body he wishes to develop
the Church of England, etc. I did think before I
investigated carefully that possibly the Bisiiop
could find some grounds for claiming apostoh-jity
for his sect, but history shows that claim falls lo
the ground. To clear up what I wish to come to, let us be
gin with our churches, Cathohc and Anghcan, as
we find them existing just now here in our city
and trace them back to their origin, I think we
shall accomplish more than chasing about in the
wilds of France to look for the origin of the Eng
hsh Church. Let me take my own case. I am pas
tor of a Catholic Church in this city. Who ap
pointed me to this charge ? The archbiship of Mil
waukee. Who gave him his authority as arch
bishop? The Holy Father, the Pope, who is tJie
two hundred and sixty-sixth successor of St. Peter,
the first Pope, to whom Christ has said after he

46
(Peter) had acknowledged him to be "The Christ,
the Son of the living God." "Blessed art thou,
Simon Bar-jona : because flesh and blood hath not
revealed it to thee, but my Father, who is in
Heaven. And I say to thee, that thou art Peter
and upon this rock I will build my Church; and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And
I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of
Heaven, and whatsoever thou shall bind upon
earth, it shaU be bound also in Heaven, and what
soever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be
loosed also in Heaven." I might quote page after
page from the Fathers of the Church, showing
that in every age the Pope was acknowledged the
Prince of the Apostles, the head of the church and
the infallible judge of all things pertaining to
faith and morals. For this reason all ages have
acknowledged the Latin saying: "Ubi Petrus, ibi
ecclesia." Where Peter is, there is the Church.
Now, Bishop, what I want you to do is to be
gin here in Fond du Lac, with yourself and trace
back the origin of your sect, showing what author
ity placed you there and where your superiors re
ceived their authority. You remember, Bishop,
in my last article, I asked you what proof you had
that your orders were valid, and your only answer
was that you felt they were valid. If you answer
all important questions as vaguely as that, I do not
wonder that your young clergy leave you, or seek
for a more logical foundation for their faith.

47
Right reason tells us that the Saviour must
have left a guide for humanity in things spiritual
and that guide must be infallible in teaching re
ligious truths.
I do not know why it is that your church has
not even a fixed name. In England it is called
The Church Established by law ; in the early days
in this country it was designated the Episcopal,
then again the Anglican Church, and lately they
have the effrontery to caU it the Catholic Church.
The notorious Dowie had the boldness to name
his church in the same way, but we know how far
he succeeded. Bishop, you know in your heart
that your church does not possess the qualifica
tions to be called Cathohc. With all your twisting
and contorting you get back to a httle synod in
France in the fourth century. There is a big
jump still left of a few centuries to get back to
Christ and his Apostles. There appears to be
nothing definite or settled— there is no head that
can show a divine commission— everything is hu
man and changeable ; for example, the very name
of your sect is unsettled. When I was a boy in
southern Wisconsin I knew it as the Protestant
Episcopal; in after years the word Protestant
was stricken off and it became known as the
Anglican Church; and, now you are trying to
adopt the name Cathohc. The infamous Dowie
tried to attach that venerable name to his fake

48
movement. As we have said above, we know how
far he succeeded.
Bishop, you know in your heart that your
church does not possess the qualifications to be
named Catholic. The word Catholic is derived
from the Greek and means universal both in time
and territory. Your church is not universal in
either way. It is found only in a few parts of the
earth, notably English-speaking nations, and con
ceding everything you claim, it does not go back
to Christ and His Apostles, therefore, lacks the
two essential qualifications to possess the name
Catholic, Be honest. Bishop, and drop what don't
belong to you.
The Bishop desires to know if I will swap
positions with him. Why Bishop, that is the most
generous of all your offers. Most certainly, I'll
swap, provided I'm not required to change my
religious views because I feel absolutely certain
of the truth of the teachings of the Catholic
Church, as our Savior promised to send the Holy
Ghost to guide her and that He himself would re
main with her all days till the consummation of
the world. Let us suppose, however, we did ex
change places. What would happen? I can only
answer for myself. If I were installed in your
residence on Division street the first questions I
would ask would be, Who is boss here ? Has any
one a right to define for me what I must believe
and teach ? If anyone claimed that right I would

49
demand of hun to prove to me that he cannot de
ceive or misdirect me. If he could not do so I
would refuse to accept his teachings. Why should
I leave a church which is founded on the promises
of Christ, which St. Paul caUs "the piUar and
ground of truth," whose teachings are clear and
definite, the same that our forefathers for untold
generations have followed during their pilgrim
age on this earth ; and get into a mist of doubt and
uncertainty without a guide to lead me securely
to the Great Hereafter. FATHER KEENAN.
P. S. Bishop, if that be true, what you said
of your income, you should demand a raise in
your salary. Idem.

Fond du Lac, Wis., Dec. 15, 1908.
Editor Daily Commonwealth : —
Father Keenan is strong, as many Romans
are, in assertion, but weak in evidence and accur
acy. He states that Archbishop Katzer never
gave any approval to Father Crowley. Now
Father Crowley in his book quotes the Most Rev.
Archbishop Katzer as saying: "I am convinced
that Almighty God brought Father Crowley to
America to save the Catholic church, and that the
present scandal in Chicago— the most terrible that
ever occurred in America— was permitted by
Providence to bring to a climax the reign of rot-

50
tenness, that it might be unearthed, exposed and
wiped out."
Father Keenan states that in England our
Church is called "the Church established by law."
This is not its name and never has been. In pre-
Reformation times and in legal documents, like
Magna Charta, it is called the "Ecclesia Angh-
cana," or Church of England. So in Edward
III. time, 1350. It was never known as the
Roman Catholic Church. Its name now is the
same as it was before the Reformation, for it is
the same church.
Again : I quoted Keenan 's Catechism that
belief in the Pope's infalhbility "was a Protes
tant invention." The Catechism went on to state
that no decision of his could bind unless it "be en
forced by the teaching body," i. e., the Bishops of
the Church. Now this is denied by the late Vati
can decree. In 1757 the Irish Romanists declared
that infallibility was not an article of the Catho
lic Faith, and in 1810, the ten Irish Roman bish
ops, in a synodical declaration, affirmed infallibil
ity was no part of the Roman Catholic religion.
This declaration was made to the British govern
ment to secure the passing of the Emancipation
act. It was clearly an affirmation made to the
British government to the effect that infallibility
was not then a dogma of the church, and was not
intended to become a dogma, otherwise, as Glad
stone says: "They were guilty of practising upon

51
the British crown one of the blackest frauds in
history," Father Keenan quotes as a generallv received
Patristic saying, "Where Peter is, there is the
church. " This was a saymg, not of all the fathers,
but originally of St. Ambrose. And as Canon
Liddon and Dr. Bright, great scholars, have writ-
en, St. Ambrose was merely saying that it was
"the great apostle's confession of the faith which
was the foundation of the church," and Ambrose
speaks of Peter as holding a "primacy," or
rather, as taking the first place "in confession"
not "in office, in faith, not in order."
As showing a lack of evidence, when we called
upon Father Keenan to cite the names of the two
Roman cardinals and three archbishops, and
others who were put to death at the time of the
Reformation, he failed to do so. He did not give
his authority or the names of the cardinals and
archbishops and twenty-six bishops. His state
ment therefore remains an unproved one. Can
laymen rely on a writer who does not cite author
ities and is so inaccurate ? Can the blind lead the
blind? Father Keenan misquotes me in saying I re
fer to Aries in 314 as a French council, and as the
point from which I wish to develop the Church of
England. I quoted it for no such purpose. But
having refuted the Father's fairy stories, I
pointed to the historical fact that the presence of

52
these three British bishops showed that the
church had been early founded in Britain, and it
does this. I also cited it as a fact showing that
this old British church was not founded by Rome,
nor under its authority, as seen by the rejection
by the British bishops of Augustine, the Roman
emissary's demands of submission to him.
Another inaccuracy of the Father's is this:
There were three bishops, not two as he says, at
the Council of Aries, as the three signatures to
the councils show. Nor was the council a French
one, as Father Keenan states but one for the
"Western Church." It was called by the Em
peror Constantine. It was not Arian, another
mistake, but called to meet the Donatist schism,
which, in its exclusiveness and claims to be the
only true church, is so like the Church of Rome.
Father Keenan asserts that in answer to the
question what proof I have for our orders, my
only answer was I felt they were vahd. This is
again an inaccuracy. The answer I gave was that
of Christ, "By their fruits ye shall know them."
I cited the effect of our Sacraments seen in the
increase of grace, on all those who had joined us
from the world, and the lack of such advance, ac
cording to their own testimony, of many who had
gone from us to Rome. The marvelous spiritual
vitality of the Anglican Church in the last 300
years, assaulted as it has been within and without,
and the rise in it of the religious life, is a demon-

53
stration of the efficacy of our Sacraments. It was
this I asserted, and not merely that I felt the ef
fect myself. It proves our case.
Again: Father Keenan wants me to trace
back the origin of our church and orders. Now we
trace them, with mission and jurisdiction, through
a succession of bishops, up to the Apostles and
Christ himself. The hst of bishops has been given
time and time again, and no less by the great ec
clesiastical historian. Dr. Stubbs, late Bishop of
Oxford, in his "Registrum Sacrum Anghcanum."
Other scholars have given a hst of our bishops up
to the time of Peter and Paul and a hst hangs up
in our own Cathedral.
In respect to our orders all our Anglican
bishops trace their spiritual descent from Arch
bishop Laud. Now Archbishop Laud combined in
himself three different lines of Episcopal consecra
tion, first, the Enghsh line of Archbishop M. Par
ker, that goes up to Theodore, Archbishop of Can
terbury, in 668, consecrated by the Pope Vital-
ianus, and so up through the Roman hne to the
Apostles, Peter and Paul.
It may here be noted that while the Roman
succession in this country for a long time was de
rived from Bishop CarroU, who was consecrated
in Lulworth Castle, 1790, in England by one
bishop only and two priests (in contradiction to
the Nicene canon, which demands three bishops,)
English history shows what remarkable care was

54
taken in the case of Matthew Parker, who was
consecrated by four bishops, two of whom had been
consecrated by the old Roman Pontifical, and all
of whom, in the act of consecration, said the con
secrating words. A fac-simile of the official rec
ord of consecration, photo-zincographed is in my
library. It is probably not known to Father Kee
nan that the Roman Cathohc Archbishop Anton-
ius Dedominis, the Archbishop of Spalatro, Italy,
joined the English Church, became Dean of
Windsor, and united in the consecration of our
bishops, and Laud traces his consecration to him.
Moreover, Laud traces also his descent to the
blessed St. Patrick, consecrated in 432, Arch
bishop of Armagh. For at the time of the Re
formation all the Irish bishops, save four, con
formed; and John Howson, Bishop of Oxford,
who traced his consecration through the Bishop
of Armagh, consecrated Lau4, Archbishop of
Canterbury, in 1633. So if the blessed St. Patrick
was a Cathohc bishop we are true bishops. WeU
may Archbishop Bramhall say, "If there are any
good orders in the world, they are in the English
Church." Authority and mission were not given by
Christ to Peter alone. Christ said, to all the
Apostles as one body, "Go ye out into all the
world, and preach the Gospel to every creature."
He thus gave them mission and jurisdiction. It
was given to all the Apostles collectively, and they

55
collectively, transmitted it to their successors.
From them our own bishops, by direct descent
from the Apostles, and as being part of the true
episcopate, received, and have exercised it, in con
formity with the canon law of the church.
This is my answer about orders and authority
to Father Keenan.
The assertion is made that our church was
founded, and by law, by King Henry VIII. If so,
will Father Keenan please cite the statute by
which the old church was destroyed and the new
one made? There is no such statute. The King
Henry VIII. and our reformers moreover de
clared it was not their intention to form a new
church or to depart from the Catholic faith. It
was not a new church founded by them, for the
government of the church by the Bishops and
Convocation remained as it was before, save that
they rejected the Papacy. In ah the acts of Par
liament, there was not a single word that implied
that any change had taken place in the identity or
the essential organization of the church itself. If,
as Father Keenan says, the old church was done
away with and a new one established by law, it
was no more made a new church, than the reforms,
wrung from King John in Magna Charta, made
the nation a new nation. In 1688 there was a rev
olution in England that changed the dynasty of
England. England, however, did not become a
new nation, because she had a new line of kings.

56
What was done at the time of the Reformation
was to reject the supremacy of the Pope, as being
unscriptural, but not to do away with the ancient
faith, as instituted by Christ and found in the
Holy Scriptures. That the church after was the
same church as before the Reformation is also
proved by the fact that in ecclesiastical trials, the
old pre-Reformation laws are now cited and re
garded as binding, because the church is the same.
It is the Roman mission in England that is the
new church. Up to the year 1571, no split took
place in England. It was not tiU 1571, in Queen
Elizabeth's time, that the Pope Pius V. caUing
upon his followers to leave the old church, began
the formation of a new one, which did not take
Diocesan form till 18501 Thus we establish the
fact that the Anglican Church was not founded
by King Henry VIIL
Father Keenan refers to the text, "Thou art
Peter." All Romans do, but they often misquote
it. Our Lord did not say, "Thou art Peter, the
Rock on which I will build my church," but "up
on this Rock," I will build it. Now what does the
pronoun "this" refer to? Does it refer to Peter
or to Christ? Against its referring to Peter is
the fact that the two words are of different gen
ders. This is the case in the Latin, the Vulgate,
in the Peshitta Syriac, in which our Lord may
iave spoken, and in the Greek, which is the lan
guage of inspiration. As Peter is a man and of

57
the masculine gender, this "Rock" which is fem
inine, cannot refer to him. But the Roman laity
go on ignorantly repeating it just because they
are told to do so.
Again, the word "Rock" in the Old Testa
ment is a synonym for "God." It is so used a
great many times in the Bible. "Their Rock (or
God) is not as our Rock" (or God) "Of the Rock
that begat thee, thou art unmindful" "He for
sook God, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his
salvation." "For who is God, save the Lord?
and who is a Rock, save our God ? ' ' Consequently,
the Apostles when Peter had confessed Christ to
be the Son of God, would naturally take ''this
Rock" as referring to Christ the Son of God.
Moreover, Our Lord takes this title to Himself,
when He says that those who act on His words are
builded and founded upon a Rock.
In interpreting Holy Scripture, it must also
be remembered that the Council of Trent bids us
take Holy Scripture as interpreted by the "unan
imous consent of the Fathers." Now the larger
number, 44 of 69, when giving a formal explana
tion of this text, take this word "Rock," as refer
ring to Christ, or Peter's confession, while some
17 take it of an office given to Peter. But I do
not know of any of these latter, who ever inter
preted it as an office which Peter was to transmit
to a successor. Peter might be the "Primate,"
"the first," "pina," "head of the Apostles," but

58
he had no successor. This is the real issue and in
this Rome fails.
In reply to the Father, I can lay my hand on
my heart and say to God, "I believe ours to be a
true branch of the Church, holding the orthodox
Faith, and possessed of valid sacraments, and one
which in love recognizes all baptized and faithful
souls as Christians.
We reject the terrible penal punishments of
a Roman purgatory. We give the Blessed Sacra
ment as Christ commanded, and as was done for
the first 1000 years to the laity in both kinds. We
do not enforce the celibacy of the clergy, which
has led, and still leads, to so much scandal, espec
ially in tropical chmates ; and we do not interfere
with the rights of the laity.
Rome, we hold, by demanding unscriptural
terms of communion, is in a schismatical position,
and by additions to the ancient faith, is uncathohc
in her teaching. Surely the time must come, when
her inteUigent laity will call for reform, or else
hear Christ saying, "Come out from among them
and be ye separate"— for you can be Catholic
without being Papal. C. C. Fond du Lac,
# * # * *
Fond du Lac, Wis., Dec. 26, 1908.
Editor Daily Commonwealth:—
I trust that the communications of Bishop
Grafton and myself, if they do not instruct, will

59
at least, be a pastime for the general pubhc. There
are so many points developed in a discussion of
this kind, covering centuries of time that it is dif
ficult to keep things clear. We are aU somewhat
affected by our training and surroundings. There
is an old gentleman living in our city who is a con-
fiimed atheist. The old man has spent his entire
life in seeking proofs for the non-existence of a
Supreme Being and that feeling has worked itself
into the marrow of his bone. I am afraid my good
friend, the Bishop, has spent so much of his life
in looking for clubs to annihilate the Pope that
his mind has become warped on that particular
point. Although a bishop, he draws a line on
Christian charity when it comes to writing of the
Popes. He knows by heart aU the evil sayings
any writer has ever uttered against the long line
of supreme pontiffs. "Alas, for the rarity of
Christian charity."
I am afraid, Bishop, that you have read and
studied only Anghcan writers and authorities.
Have you ever read "Cobbett's History of the
Reformation?" He was an Anghcan and would
not therefore be unfair to you. Read also Ken-
drick on the "Primacy of the Apostohc See," and
you will learn many things you do not seem to
know. I would be glad if you'd teU me of some
book that would clear up the points we are writ
ing on about AnghcanisuL In regard to the Crow
ley affair, I would again repeat that it is con-

60
trary to common sense that the late Archbishop of
Milwaukee would approve of such a mass of foul
ness. There is living proof that he did not.
You claim that your orders work miracles, in
bringing to grace the wayward. I know a few
cases where they failed. Look over the archives
of your diocese and tell me what good did you ef
fect with those ex-priests, Maglone, Lichner,
Herbst and Ryan. Could you retain one of themf
They might take your church as a place of refuge
for a time when they are in "hard luck" but you
cannot give them a logical foundation for their
faith. It is still true what Dean Swift said in his
time: "When the Pope weeds his garden he
throws the weeds into our (Anglican) lot,"
Bishop, it is like pulling a cat upstairs by the tail
to get you to go back and give a clear statement
of the origin of Anglicanism, We brought you
back to the synod of Aries in the fourth century.
Now, Bishop, I dislike to push you back any far
ther, because beyond that you wiU find nobody
but Popes, and it is not friendly to push you in
among them. You can not doubt their genuine
Christianity, however, as twenty of the Popes of
the first three centuries, died as martyrs for the
faith of Christ. And the same faith your fore
fathers deserted at the time of Henry VIII.
I wonder it does not strike you as unreason
able to ask me, or anyone else, to go to your Cathe
dral and examine a chart of succession you have

61
made up and placed there. You could go in there
any night and change that chart to suit yourself.
To see the apostolicity of the Catholic church, you
need but look in Appleton's new Encyclopedia un
der the title Pope, and you will find an unbroken
line from Peter in the first century till Pius the
Tenth in the twentieth century. You did not make
any effort in your last letter to prove your claim
to Catholicity. You know you cannot. You need
not go far away to prove the universality of the
Ca,thoUc church. Go to the diocese immediately
north of us. Green Bay, the word of God is
preached every Sunday in seventeen different
languages, in that diocese. That is what is meant
by Catholicity. The Bible tells us that on Pente
cost day, St. Peter preached to people of eighteen
different countries and languages, and he con
verted eight thousand to the church became Cath
olic from the first, including aU nations.
Let us go back to the Bishop. What I sincere
ly desire to learn from him is, during the reign
of what Pope did his church start an independent
existence ? Who was the leader or prominent one
in this separation? What was wrong with the
church that they left her? Did they not err in
leaving a church that had the promise of Christ,
that He would remain with her ah days tiU the
end of time ?
The Bishop states again there was no new
church founded in the time of Henry VIII. and

62
asks me to give the act of parliament by which it
was established. King Henry did not need an act
of parliament for anything. After leaving the
Catholic church he became supreme head of both
church and state, and any poor wight that opposed
either his animal lust, or his desire for power, his
head was taken off.
You ask what authorities we have to show
that cardinals, bishops and priests were put to
death to establish the new religion under Henry
VIII. I would refer you to "Liguori's History
of Heresies," page 338, also "Varhlas," t. 2. I.
16, p. 98, or, any fair writer of any nation, who
has treated on that subject.
Let us take some of the objections you make.
You assert the Pope granted a divorce to Napol
eon. It is not pleasing to me and, I feel it in my
bones, that it is not pleasing to my readers, to hear
me continually calhng back names. But what can
one do? Here is a man calling himself a Chris
tian bishop, who, I fear, knowingly and designedly
falsifies the well known facts of history. A spade
must be called a spade and I tell Bishop Grafton
boldly, not that he is mistaken, but that he is wil
fully prevaricating when he has the effrontery to
assert that the Pope granted a divorce "a vinculo
matrimonii" to Napoleon I, ; yea, or to any one
else. Pope Pius VII., who at this time was a pris
oner of Napoleon I., never granted— "or approved

63
of what had been done," to said emperor a divorce
from the Empress Josephine. And Bishop Graf
ton knows this full weU, if he knows anything. If
you are ignorant of this fact, all I can say is, that
you are shaky in your Modern History. I would
advise you to read up some. Napoleon was mar
ried to Josephine Beauharnais, March 9, 1796, by
a civil ceremony only. On December 1, 1804, the
day preceding the coronation of Napoleon, Jos
ephine mentioned this fact to Pope Pius VII.,
who had shared the common belief that she had
been married according to the laws of the church.
Napoleon, who desired to be free to contract an
other marriage in hopes of an heir to the throne
of France, was greatly displeased at this disclos
ure. Yet he hoped still to have a loop hole in the
religious marriage ceremony, which was per
formed on the eve of the coronation by Cardinal
Fesch, by purposely incurring the impediment
of clandestinity, which required the presence
of the parish priest and two witnesses. The
Pontiff, however, granted to Cardinal Fesch
the necessary dispensation from this impedi
ment, so that the marriage was valid.
Thus, Prince Jerome Napoleon in 1887— "Na
poleon and his Detractors" wrote: "Napoleon
and Josephine, who had been only civilly married
in time of the Directory, were united religiously
by Cardinal Fesch, in order to satisfy the scruples
of Josephine, on the evening preceding the conse-

64
cration in the presence of Tallyrand and Ber-
thier, in the chapel of the Tuileries. I know this
from the traditions of my family." The tribunal
which declared the nullity of this marriage, there
fore, acted on false testimony which denied the re-
hgious marriage, and exercised an authority it
did not possess, "for the Pope is the proper Judge
in such cases." The Pope, a prisoner then, had
nothing whatsoever to do in the case. It never
was brought before him. My authority for all
this ? Any and every work of respectability treat
ing on this episode. Another Grafton lie laid low.
As Bishop Grafton seems to be not a little ex
ercised over, if not grossly ignorant of the num
ber of bishops essential to a valid consecration of
a bishop, I presume to advise him to read "Van
Espen," quoted by Estcourt, pages 111-112. There
he will find the true Catholic teaching on this sub
ject. Most undoubtedly in the establishment of the
American hierarchy, and in the consecration of
the first bishop of the American Colonies to which
Bishop Grafton seems to take exception, there
was nothing hostile or repugnant to the spirit of
the apostolic canons or practice of the Christian
church, there was nothing done furtively or clan
destinely, or without the knowledge, approval and
assent of the clergy of the province and the uni
versal church. Bishop Grafton did you ever hear
teU of the Protestant Episcopal Bishop Cox of

65
Western New York, or of Dr. Ryan, bishop of
Buffalo, same state ? Now, good sir, this man Cox,
too, found the same fault with American Catholic
succession that you find. In fact. Cox, let us say,
in the simplicity of his heart imagined that, in
this matter, at least, he had Dr. Ryan up a tree.
Poor dupe— "et tu Brute."
If you have not perused Dr. Ryan's work,
"Apostolic Succession," allow me to advise you
to procure it and to read it, nay to study it closely.
It will open your eyes on this and many other
topics, if they are at all openable. You will then
see, know and understand the difference between
canons of discipline and canons of faith.
Only the prefervid, fertile, imaginative, per
haps, poetic brains of Grafton, Cox & Co. could
invent such ludicrous nonsense as has been belched
forth on this topic. How about Parker, Barlow
& Co.? Were they Christian bishops? Bishops
of any kind in an Ecclesiastical sense? Can you
prove it? If you can you'U have done what no
one up to you has been able to do. Never mind
the Pope. Wash your own dirty linen. You'll
find more than enough to do. What is easier than
to compile a list of names and hang it up "in our
Cathedral!" Bishop your request for the names of the
martyrs under Henry is a foolish one. It would
be an endless task and of no special interest to the
general public to give a categorical hst of the

66
English and Irish martyrs— of the Catholic men
who generously, unhesitatingly, willingly laid
down their lives for the Cathohc faith under the
brutal, licherous Henry VIII. and his equally in
famous bastard daughter Elizabeth & Co. Their
names, instead of the few mentioned in a former
article, is "legion." Do you greatly desire names?
Read then, good sir, the "Lives of the Enghsh
Martyrs," You'll find this work in any reputable
book store. Glance at Spaulding's History of the
Protestant Reformation or any other honest work
treating upon this subject, and they are many. I
feel assured that after this reading you will blush
for shame if you are capable of blushing. The re
cital of the cruelties employed to establish your
monstrosity of a church in both England and Ire
land would bring tears to the eyes of the most
hardened. Bishop, in all sincerity, I now look
upon you as a first class quibbler.
"For at the time of the Reformation 'all' the
Irish bishops, save four, conformed"— Ita Graf
ton. I have, in my time, again and again heard of
"Thumping English lies," but this outrageous lie
out-lies the father of lies, the devil, himself —"All
the Irish bishops save four, conformed." Great
God in Heaven!! And this man has the audacity
to dub himself a "bishop"!!— a minister of Jesus
Christ. With Cicero, I may truly exclaim, "0
tempora! O mores!!" No wonder is it, that we see

67
so many lapse into deism and infidelity when we
perceive to what depths of untruth, deceit and
double dealing, even some of those calling them
selves ambassadors of the meek and lowly Jesus
can descend. Of "aU the Irish Catholic bishops," says
Archbishop M. J. Spalding, in his "History of the
Protestant Reformation," only "one" and he an
Enghshman— a mere creature of Henry VIIL,
who had been appointed on account of his mean
subserviency to the pohcy of Henry's "Vicar
General, CromweU," gave his vote to the change
of rehgion. This was Brown of Dublin ; he was a
royal tool, more than a true Catholic bishop. The
other bishops in a body, with Cromer, archbishop
of Armagh, at their head, unanimously resisted
the innovation." Why, Sir, this so-called relig
ion of yours which you strove by fire and sword
and famine and every species of deviltry to foist
upon us Irish was so odious to us that we boldly
and heroically took the field under Fitzgerald in
defence of our ancient faith.
Later on, Myler Magrath, Archbishop of
Cashel, was found to stain his soul with the awful
guilt of apostacy from the faith of his fathers;
and, good sir, let me inform you, so great was the
indignation of his people thereat— ever loyal, gal
lant, faithful, fearless, heroic "Tips" all— that
they rose as one man in tumult and compelled him
to flee from Cashel and seek safety in England—

68
Vide Spalding, McGee and others. None of your
foul Ehzabethian religion for Ireland, To Peter
and to him who sits in Peter's chair, Ireland,
priests and people, has ever, thank God, been
loyal and with God's help, ever shaU be, "Semper
et ubique Fideles" is our weU earned, glorious
motto. So much for Irish conformity to the lust
ful Henry's establishment.
Bishop, you talk as if no one else had a right
to interpret the meaning of the words of Scrip
ture except yourself, whereas, I know right weU,
from your late writings, that you are not only fal
lible, but exceedingly tricky and dishonest in your
statements. May our good Lord assist the people
who are depending upon your direction. Do you
presume to compare your feeble effort at think
ing and reasoning to the united consent and de
cisions of the learned in every age of Christianity
which we find expressed in the teachings of the
Cathohc Churches over which Christ the Savior
promised to preside till the end of time— that is
unbounded pride— remember the fate of Lucifer.
You put yourself up as a pope without any prom
ise of divine assistance. You criticise and inter
pret everything to suit your whim and the occa
sion. This is surely a case of the "blind leading
the blind." This article is already long enough,
but as I promised before, I shall on some future
occasion write on the Pope and some of the sub
jects treated of in Pro-Romanism. FATHER KEENAN.

69
Fond du Lac, Wis., Dec. 30, 1908.
Editor Daily Commonwealth: —
It is surprising how a little thing like the
sting of an insect will irritate some persons. I
referred to a book written by a Father Crowley,
which while revealing many existing scandals in
the Roman Church, caUed on the laity to defend
our public school system. He prefaced his book
with what was stated to be a commendation by
Archbishop Katzer. He gave his words. Father
Keenan says the bishop could not have said this.
This denial is hke positive proof to Father Kee
nan 's mind, but it has nothing to do with me.
Father Keenan denounces me for my remark
about the Pope's aUowance of the marriage of
Napoleon to Marie Louise of Austria. The pope,
I knew, was in duress, but I did not know that
that should close the mouth of God's specially ap
pointed guardian of the Faith and morals. If I
am wrong about the details of the matter, it was
because I had for my authority Guizot. In the
seventh chapter of his history of France, page
390, he says that Cardinal Fesch who celebrated
the marriage, "declared that the Pope had granted
him fuU Dispensation."
Father Keenan taunts me with the names of
four bad Roman priests, who he says, came to me
and were not benefited, i. e. converted. We evan
gelical Christians do not claim to convert any,
only God can do that. But because those who en-

70
ter any church from wrong motives are not spir
itually benefitted, it does not follow that those
who come from right ones are not blessed. But as
Rome has nothing more to give than our church,
we do not find, as a rule, any spiritual advance
made by the converts from us to them. Usually
the seceders say they have found peace, which
comes in virtue of an ordinary psychological law
from throwing off responsibility. Their spiritual
sense becomes smothered by the act of submission,
and then sinks into the torpor of a delusive peace.
But as to these four priests named, three I never
received into my Diocese. The Roman bishop wrote
me of one that, if he were put into any of our
missions, his evil life would be publicly exposed.
I got rid of him. I see by the papers he is now
officiating at a Roman altar.
In respect to the efficacy of our sacramental
means of grace, I gave my testimony along with
that of hundreds of our clergy of their transform
ing effects on those, who from the world, had
come under their influence. And from the written
testimony of some, like Dr. Poulkes, who had left
us for Rome, but returned, it seemed that the con
verts had not spiritually advanced. If Rome has
Sacraments and we have not, a marked improve
ment should be seen in the converts to her. But
no one who knew their lives would say that Man
ning or Newman were any holier than Pusey or
Keble, if as holy.

71
Again:— I am charged with want of charity
to the Popes. Now, it is not by Protestant his
torians that the criminally scandalous lives of the
Popes have been exposed. The official annalist
of the Roman church, "Baronius," gives a most
terrible account of the degrading bestiality and
viciousness of Roman pontiffs. The Apostolic
See became a sewer of crime and filth. There were
Popes whose lives were stained with every crime
and vice known to man, Henry VIII. was a sen
sual and vicious man, but he was almost a saint
beside some of these Popes. Why should not
those who are so sensitive about their wicked and
carnally minded Popes exercise the claimed for
charity towards him? For my own part, I be-
heve along with St. John the Baptist that not to
condemn wicked men in high places, but to hide
their wickedness is to be disloyal to God.
But our real point is this— "How can these
godless Popes be the organs of the Holy Ghost?"
Fr. Tyrrell, the great ex-Jesuit writer, whose
words are stirring aU Europe, writes (Mediseval
ism 89) "Your Eminence; a boy in his teens, as
ignorant as he^ was morally vicious, was once
elected to be Vicar of Christ. He had not at the
moment of his election, the most rudimentary
knowledge of his Catechism." "The knowledge
and infallible interpretation of tradition by a to
tally ignorant boy-pope like John XII. or Bene
dict IX., would be an effect without a natural

72
cause, " God might open the mouth of an ass to
make sounds which the hypnotised prophet might
translate to his disordered brain, but the blessed
Holy Spirit cannot speak through Godless souls,
I pointed to the historical fact that the Roman
succession, in this country for a long time de
pended on the consecration of Bishop Carroll in
England in Lulworth Castle, by one bishop only.
I have a fac-simile copy of the original account.
I did not say it was invalid, though Ligouri holds
such consecrations doubtful, yet it was not in con
formity with the ancient canon which requires
three bishops. Dr. Challoner in 1741, Dr. Shar-
rock 1780, Dr. Gibson 1790, were also consecrated
by one Roman bishop. It stands in contrast with
the care taken in England where four bishops
united in the consecration of Parker, Archbishop
of Canterbury, over whom, it is of record, that all
the bishops said the consecrating words.
Our orders, as I have stated, are traced up to
the Apostles through three lines, first, in the Eng
hsh line through Parker, the Roman Italian line
through the Archbishop de Dominis, and through
the Irish line. It is a fact that some of the Irish
Roman bishops at the time of Queen Elizabeth
conformed. In Macbeth 's History of Ireland
pages 166-168, he states that only two bishops
"refused to accept the new order of things." This
is stated by other writers. Subsequently some, as
Hugh Curwen, Archbishop of Dublin conformed.

73
and these joined in the consecration of bishops in
England. All three lines met in Archbishop Laud,
and ah of the Anglican Bishops are spiritually
descended from him. The list of bishops with
their consecrations is given in Stubbs, the great
ecclesiastical historian and in others. Archbishop
Laud was himself offered a Cardinalate by the
Pope and refused it. The then Pope also called
on Queen Elizabeth to send bishops to the Coun
cil of Trent.
Our orders and Sacraments have been more
over acknowledged by Roman Catholics. By Bos
suet, Bishop Strickland of Namur, Bishop Sto-
nor. Vicar Apostolic, Bishop Doyle of Kildare,
BishopRyan of Limerick, Archbishop Murray of
Dublin, the Very Rev. Charles Davenport, D. D.,
the Fr. Francis of St. Clare, the Rev. G. Panzini,
an Oratorian who said : ' ' The orders of the Hier
archy remained the same." The Very Rev. P,
Walsh, Professor of Divinity, who wrote, "I con
cur with those who doubt not the ordination of
Bishops, Priests and Deacons in the Church of
England." A very much longer list might be
cited (See Rome's Tribute to Anglican Orders.)
We need not and do not appeal to them, for God
has placed His seal upon our orders. The late
Pope who thought otherwise was deceived as to a
matter of fact. He was told that the "form"
used in the ordinal used was only, "Receive ye the
Holy Ghost!" But words implying the sacerdo-

74
turn or priestly power were united to these. The
Pope did not know this.
Again:— We, who are true Catholic church
men, don't object to a primacy of precedence and
honor, confirmed by tradition and canon law on
Rome, but to a medisevally developed supremacy,
which makes the Pope the monarch of the church.
Vicar of Christ, infallible apart from the church's
councils, and sole arbiter of doctrine. One, whose
claims are based on misinterpretations of the
Fathers, misunderstood texts of Scripture, by
claims developed through greed of power, and the
forged decretals. See concerning these forged
decretals Janus 94-150. Roman writers all admit
their forgery. Pope Pius VI. in 1789, said: "Let
us put aside this coUection and let it be burnt."
And here I would quote the words of Kenwick,
the late Roman Catholic Archbishop of St, Louis,
who in his speech prepared for the Vatican Coun
cil says, "The primacy of the Roman pontiff, both
in honor and jurisdiction, I acknowledge, primacy,
I say, not Lordship." He accepted the primacy,
as based on tradition. "But that it can be proved
from the words of Holy Scripture, I deny. It is
true I held the opposite view when writing the
"Observations," but on a closer study of the sub
ject, I judge this interpretation must be aban
doned. ' '
I have answered the question when our church
was founded. It was founded by Jesus Christ

75
and on the day of Pentecost. Christ did not found
many churches but one. His church gradually
extended throughout the world. No one knows the
exact time when it reached Rome or Britain. We
know from Holy Scripture that St. Paul labored
in Rome, and probably as tradition says, he went
to Britain. What is certain is that the church
with its three orders of ministry was early estab-
hshed in both places, and the early British Church
was in communion with western Christendom, as
evidenced by the British Bishops' presence at
Western Councils. In 597 Pope Gregory sent to
Britain a missionary by the name of Augustine.
He did a smah work in the southeastern corner
of Britain now caUed Kent. He and the British
Bishops did not agree in some matters of discip
line, which is only interesting as showing a certain
independence of Rome. Subsequently under
Archbishop Theodore, sent by Rome, the two Com
munions were governmentally united, and it be
came known as the Ecclesia Anglicana, or Church
of England. This was the sole Church in England
till the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth
century. Then the Church, while retaining its
organization, its three orders of ministry, bishops,
priests and deacons, its ancient creeds, the sacra
mental means of grace, liturgical worship, rejected
the developed mediaeval papacy. She continued
to be the old Catholic Church and to hold the
Catholic Faith. Her principle of reform was to

76
retain the teaching and discipline of the early and
united Church, ere the Church had by the as
sumption of Papal supremacy been rent into
Eastern and Western Christendom. She put the
Liturgy into the tongue understood by the people,
gave back to the laity the reception of the Prec
ious Blood in the Holy Communion as had been
our Lord's command and the custom for 1000
years, restored the Sacrament of Marriage to the
clergy of which they had been deprived, made
confession to the priest a voluntary not an en
forced obligation. No new church was made. The
old Catholic Church was continued. It was not
the work of King Henry, but of the Church her
self, reforming herself, and continuing as she pro
fessed to be, the Catholic Church in England.
Father Keenan says I gave my own interpre
tation of the text, "Thou Art Peter." I did not
give my own, but that of most of the. Fathers. The
authors of the work called Janus, who were Roman
Catholic professors, after an exhaustive search in
history, declared that none of the Fathers, for
500 years, in interpreting this text ever held that
here was an office or power given to Peter that
was to be transmitted to a successor. They left the
Roman Communion.
Father Keenan may not accept my evidence,
but he cannot refuse that of Archbishop Kenwick
of St. Louis, who says the Papal claims cannot be
proved by Scripture. "We are compelled to

77
abandon the usual modern exposition of the words,
'On this rock will I build my Church,' " He says
that only seventeen Fathers refer "This rock" to
Peter, and none of these according to Janus say
that it was an office in which he was to have a suc
cessor. The Archbishop says forty-four Fathers
refer the Rock to Peter's faith, sixteen to Christ,
and 8 to aU the Apostles. He concludes therefore
that the Papacy cannot be proved by the Scrip
tures according to the Rule of Trent which re
quires the unanimous consent of the Fathers for
their interpretation.
There are two points to which in conclusion I
ask the attention of my fairminded readers. First,
quite irrespective of the king's cause, a Reforma
tion of the Church was needed. It must have come,
king or no king. There had long been an urgent,
nay passionate cry within the church for reform.
The need of it had been recognized by the Council
of Constance in 1414, and a committee was formed
under the title of the Reformation college. In
1425, Henry VI. of England addressed a paper to
Pope Martin V. for hastening a council for the
Reformation of the Church. The Pope Adrian
VI. by his nuncio acknowledged the need of it. In
1538 Pope Paul III. appointed a committee con
cerning it. The need of a Reformation is admitted
by Roman authorities such as Bossuet, Schlegel,
Muhler and Cardinal Belarmine. The latter sums
up the case thus:— "A few years before the here-

78
sies of Luther and Calvin, there was according to
the testimony of contemporary writers, neither
justice in the ecclesiastical courts, nor discipline
in the morals of the clergy, nor knowledge of sa
cred things, nor respect for them, in short, there
was scarcely any religion left, ' '
From the report of the Committee of Cardi
nals we learn that the German princes complain
that by "the exemption of ecclesiastics from juris
diction of temporal courts they were enabled to
commit all kinds of crimes with impunity.
Amongst the specified crimes aUeged as common
are coining, theft, abduction, adultery, rape, arson
and murder, while even when bishops were wiUing
to bring such offenders to justice, their chapters
hampered them so they could not. ' '
The Cardinals report that "the root of all the
evhs of the Church was in the Roman Curia."
They said, "If the Pope wants reform, he must be
gin at home." They add that "the simony of the
Roman Church was intolerable, that men of the
most abandoned character were freely ordained;
that the Sacraments were openly sold for money,
that the conventual orders had become so griev
ous a scandal that they ought to be summarily
abolished ; that the theological seminaries were at
once schools of immorality and scepticism; while
in Rome the divine service was celebrated in a sor
did and irreverent fashion by ignorant priests."-
See Littledale, Plain Reasons 211-212.

79
These elements of evil in England were testi
fied to by the notable sermon preached before
Convocation by the great Dean Colet in 1500. But
it was not the moral evils only that cried out for
reform. The laity felt the oppression and injus
tice of the Papacy. When a bishopric was vacant,
the Pope claimed its whole income for a year ! The
appeals to Rome in the cases of wills were expen
sive. More money went to Rome than to the sup
port of the king. Political as well as moral mo
tives effected the great reform needed for spiritual
advancement, and the freedom of men's minds.
There certainly was need of a reformation,
and in England it proceeded in a churchly and le
gal way. It is foolish to say it was the act of the
King. Henry might be a tyrant, but he always
acted in conformity with law. The Church in
England, acting according to her authority derived
from Christ Himself, rejected the usurped un
scriptural power of the monarchical papal suprem
acy, corrected abuses and re-affirmed the ancient
faith. The right of provincial synods to decree in
matters of faith and to reform abuses, was ever
recognized by national and provincial synods.
Thus the Council of Gangra, about 325, condemned
Eustatius for holding marriage to be unlawful.
The provincial Council at Carthage, 343 con
demned rebaptism. The provincial Council at
Aquileia, 381 condenmed Palladius and Secund-
inus for Arianism, A second Council of Carthage

80
dealt with and decreed the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity. The Council of Melis in Africa con
demned the Pelagian heresy. A provincial Coun
cil of Orange in the fifth century dealt with the
controversies about grace and free wUl. So the
third Council of Toledo 589, handled many articles
of the Faith, and declared if there happens a cause
of faith to be settled, a historical synod shaU be
held. In like measure, repudiating the Papal
claims, but acknowledging and appealing to a Gen
eral Council of the whole Church, the Church of
England, acting within her rights, reformed her
self, and that these reforms were wise has been
proven by experience.
In concluding my part in this correspondence,
I wih say that the calling of one names, only makes
one rejoice, as being thus made hke the Master, It
has never been my aim to seek victory in contro
versy, but to bring out the Truth. I am as willing
to be corrected in my mistakes, being but human,
as I am glad to help others out of theirs. What I
have proved is that our Church was not founded
by Henry VIIL, and that such a statement is un
scholarly and untrue. C. C. Fond du Lac,

Any person -wiehing a copy of Bishop Grafton's "Letter to the
Oneidas," may have one by applying to the author, 101 East Divi
sion street, Fond du Lac, Wis.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08837 6976

^ flj -> "' *£'*„

;t^,-../
I
'f' !';* V...' '
¦ >
,.(> '
'•;> '' H, >
;-^lri:lfb:^t •/,;;
^'•-1" J!
' '' O
''ili*]f*l'. I' ''i!
1' 'i^^'*
( »»r
(
^1,.' >.»
'ij
f^f*! i*il rJ
'II I
'^'*^Vf-,,.,
i:k4