No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Biblical Question and the English Liberal Catholics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
Extract
Looking backward from the early nineteenth century, the Catholic Church in England had disappointingly little scholarly achievement of which to boast since the Reformation. Henry Holden, Charles Butler, John Lingard—all were men to be proud of, but Catholics of such intellectual bent were so few. And understandably so. The penal laws had effectively deprived the recusants of any access to higher education, and would perdure until the latter nineteenth century. Squires whose sons were barred for their faith from most schools and from the two universities had to be content to enroll them quietly at one or another of the exile schools across the channel. The Irish immigrants who later came to fill and overspill the churches in the nineteenth century had even less exposure to—and perhaps appetite for—scholarship. And the clergy who shepherded this extraordinary flock of secluded gentry and boisterous working folk pursued a highly sacramental and understandably unsophisticated pastorate. The Church naturally felt itself somewhat put upon, and fell into rather defensive postures. Scholarship would appear as a luxury at best, and at worst as a weapon that the Establishment seemed always more adept and smooth at handling.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1969
References
1 Altholz, Josef, The Liberal Catholic Movement in England (London, 1962), pp. 27–28Google Scholar.
2 Ward, Wilfrid, The Life and Times of Cardinal Wiseman. (London, 1897), I, 54–64, 90, 126, 132–37Google Scholar.
3 Vidler, Alec R., The Modernist Movement in the Roman Church (Cambridge, England, 1934), pp. 60–66Google Scholar.
4 Altholz, , op. cit., pp. 235–244Google Scholar; Vidler, , op. cit., pp. 9–10, 28–29; 50Google Scholar.
5 “Conflicts with Rome,” The Home and Foreign Review, IV (1864), 690Google Scholar.
6 From Abbot [Aidan] Gasquet, O.S.B., Lord Acton and His Circle (London, 1906), pp. lxvii–lxviiiGoogle Scholar. This section of the Preface was actually written by Edmund Bishop: see Abercrombie, Nigel, The Life and Work of Edmund Bishop (London, 1959), p. 19Google Scholar.
7 Altholz, , op. cit., p. 206Google Scholar.
8 A note made by Edmund Bishop about 1914 for the Cambridge Liturgical Handbook. See Abercrombie, , op. cit., p. 512Google Scholar.
9 Vidler, , op. cit., p. 36Google Scholar.
10 Review (unsigned) of Colenso, John William, The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined, Part III, in The Home and Foreign Review, III (1863), 222–23Google Scholar. Other remarks by Simpson strike the same note: “That truth will in the long-run be the gainer by the critical investigation of the Scriptures we most firmly believe; but the immediate consequence of these investigations may be the loss of faith, not only to individuals but to whole nations, and that for centuries… These consequences cannot affect those who, like ourselves, deny that the Bible was divinely intended as the sole guide and standard of faith and practice, and for whom, as individuals, the accuracy of text and version can have but a subordinate interest. It is not for the purpose of learning our creed that we have recourse to the Bible, nor can the direction of our belief be altered either by a change of reading or translation, or by the discovery that certain texts are interpolations.” From a review (unsigned) of The Holy Gospels, by Brameld, G. William, in The Home and Foreign Review, III (1863), 645–46Google Scholar. “‘The Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants’; it is the sole standard and guide of their faith and practice; and the most terrible judgments are supposed to await any one who shall add to or take away from ‘the words of this book.’ … Learned Protestants have laboured with more zeal than success to solve the difficulties involved in their admission of a divinely determined canon of Scripture. The Bible itself bears no witness to such a canon; and any other authority competent to decide so capital a question must, by the mere fact of its existence, be subversive of the fundamental principle of ‘the Bible and the Bible only.’ With what consistency can the testimony of the Church or ecclesiastical tradition be accepted as infallibly certain on one most vital question, if its testimony is utterly repudiated as worthless on all others?” From a review (unsigned) of Histoire du Canon des Ecritures saintes dans l'Eglise chrétienne, by Edouard Reuss, ibid., p. 648.
11 [Oxenham, H. N.], “The Neo-Protestantism of Oxford,” The Rambler, N.S., IV (1860–1861), 301–303Google Scholar.
12 Altholz, , op. cit., p. 204Google Scholar.
13 [Acton], N. N., “The Danger of Physical Science,” The Rambler, N.S., VI (1861–1862), 528Google Scholar. Elsewhere Acton also criticized the Protestants for refusing to accept the new criticism, which he thought revealed Luther's, dishonesty “in those very things on which the Reformation depended.” The History of Freedom and Other Essays, ed. Figgis, J. N. and Laurence, R. V. (London, 1907), pp. 350–51Google Scholar. What he means by this is made clear in his Cambridge lectures on Luther, delivered in 1899–1900. He contended that Luther shifted his position several times. Originally he protested against Tetzel's arguments for the indulgence. “But the extreme point was the theory that payment of a few pence would rescue a soul from purgatory. Therefore, when Luther raised a protest against such propositions, he said no more than what many other people were saying, and less than some. And he had no idea that he was not speaking in thorough harmony with the entire Church, or that the ground he occupied was new.” He was actually appealing to the pope for support. But when Cajetan confronted him with a decree of Clement VI, he went on to declare that no papal decree was sufficient security for him. “It was well understood at Rome that Cajetan, in pushing Luther one step beyond his original Thesis, by transferring the question from the discretion of Tetzel to the authority under which he acted, had mismanaged the affair.” Miltitz, the Saxon layman who brought the Golden Rose to Frederick of Saxony, conferred sympathetically with Luther, who agreed to publish an explanation and let the matter drop. Luther wrote to Leo X, affirming ecclesiastical authority and papal supremacy on the grounds of its longevity, but suggesting that a council might be superior. The dispute with John Eck at Leipzig in 1519 brought him to a further step. Eck pushed the point of a council, and Luther had to admit that though some things Hus had taught were wrong, so was the council that condemned him. “He admitted, in the end, that Councils as well as Popes might be against him, and that the authority by which he stood was the divine revelation. That is how ‘the Bible, and the Bible only’, became the religion of Protestants.” Lectures on Modern History, ed. Figgis, J. N. and Laurence, R. V. (London, 1906), pp. 92–96Google Scholar.
14 Mivart, St. George Jackson, “The Catholic Church and Biblical Criticism,” The Nineteenth Century, XXII (1887), 47Google Scholar.
15 von Hügel, Friedrich Baron, “Convictions Common to Catholicism and Protestantism,” Homiletic Review, 09, 1917Google Scholar; cited in Essays and Addresses on the Philosophy of Religion (London, 1921), p. 246Google Scholar.
16 Briggs, Charles A. and von Hügel, Friedrich Baron, The Papal Commission and the Pentateuch(London, 1906), p. 48Google Scholar.
17 From the Preface to A Christian Apology, by Schanz, Paul, trans. Schobel, Victor J. and Glancey, Michael F. (Dublin, 1891–1892), II, i–iiGoogle Scholar.
18 “The Limits of the ‘Higher Criticism,’” The Tablet, November 3, 1906, pp. 682–83.
19 Cited in Gasquet, , op. cit., p. 223Google Scholar.
20 Barry, William, The Tradition of Scripture (London, 1906), pp. 220–221Google Scholar.