-
Articles/Ads
Article REJECTED LETTERS. Page 1 of 6 →
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Rejected Letters.
REJECTED LETTERS .
THE " TABLET AND FREEMASONRY . EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTION OF ECCLESIASTICAL CENSORSHIP . NO . I . To the Editor ofthe Freemasons' Quarterly Review . London , llth March , 1044 .
Sin , —The subjoined vindication comprises three short letters united , sent to the office of the " Tablet" for insertion in that paper . To save trouble , I enclosed a stamp with my letter , last sent by the hand of a friend , who personally gave them to the most valuable publisher , with a request that they should be returned if not used . No return was made or notice taken ; and upon my friend calling , he was told—that the editor had only just returned from Ireland , but it was to be feared they had been destroyed , and that " no more correspondence on that subject is admissible" was the reply . I therefore have deemed it rightful to publish in this form , my protest against the lay interference , in spiritual affairs , of a newspaper , pretending to become the organ of the British Catholics . " A ROMAN CATHOLIC . "
To the Editor ofthe Tablet . Freemasons' Hall , 20 th December , 1843 . Sir , —Freemasonry , as a subject of history , or politics , might not have ill suited the pages of a newspaper , but as a matter of ecclesiastical censorship , never should have been forced upon the . readers of the " Tablet . " Documents already before the world , elucidatory of facts little known , might have been introduced with wholesome effect , without editorial remarks . But the vanity , or ignorance , that could have induced the
publication of your dogmatical condemnation of millions of Christians—from the very first article , on the 7 th of January , 1843 , to which I sent my first correction of your assumptions , to that of the 16 th of December last—is highly reprehensible , and evinces an intolerant spirit , quite at variance with the charitable precepts of the Catholic faith . If our Bishops felt compelled to warn the faithful against certain " secret societies , '' the editor of a Catholic journal bad no right to put his interpretation upon pastorals and lettersmuch less attempt to palm his opinions of the force and value
, of papal decrees upon his readers . Had the writer confined his denunciations to " secret societies , " dangerous to the State , and of infidel tendency , no one could have found fault . But when it is asserted boldly , that all Freemasons are infidels , the temerity of such an announcement is only equalled by the falsity of so ignorant and uncharitable an assumption . What is Freemasonry truly represented ? A secret society , or universal brotherhood , more ancient than Christianity—using a secret sign—bound hy a ( so called ) secret oathor affirmation ( to secrecy )—divided into
nume-, rous Lodges over the whole world , to which members are admitted according to certain ceremonies ( for the sake of excluding improper persons ) , and rising by grades—governed by officers , under one head or Grand Master , in each respective country—instituted for purposes simply convivial and purely charitable , having no connexion with either POLITICS or RELIGION . The principles of Freemasonry are the love of God above all things , —our neighbour as ourselves , —obedience to the State and to all superiors , —brotherly love , and universal charity .
But your one-sided announcement , upon the ridiculous principle of the Duke of , that you have a right to do as you like with your ownvilify whom you please , without allowing a defence—that " the remonstrance , had it come from any but a clergyman , WE certainly should NOT
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Rejected Letters.
REJECTED LETTERS .
THE " TABLET AND FREEMASONRY . EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTION OF ECCLESIASTICAL CENSORSHIP . NO . I . To the Editor ofthe Freemasons' Quarterly Review . London , llth March , 1044 .
Sin , —The subjoined vindication comprises three short letters united , sent to the office of the " Tablet" for insertion in that paper . To save trouble , I enclosed a stamp with my letter , last sent by the hand of a friend , who personally gave them to the most valuable publisher , with a request that they should be returned if not used . No return was made or notice taken ; and upon my friend calling , he was told—that the editor had only just returned from Ireland , but it was to be feared they had been destroyed , and that " no more correspondence on that subject is admissible" was the reply . I therefore have deemed it rightful to publish in this form , my protest against the lay interference , in spiritual affairs , of a newspaper , pretending to become the organ of the British Catholics . " A ROMAN CATHOLIC . "
To the Editor ofthe Tablet . Freemasons' Hall , 20 th December , 1843 . Sir , —Freemasonry , as a subject of history , or politics , might not have ill suited the pages of a newspaper , but as a matter of ecclesiastical censorship , never should have been forced upon the . readers of the " Tablet . " Documents already before the world , elucidatory of facts little known , might have been introduced with wholesome effect , without editorial remarks . But the vanity , or ignorance , that could have induced the
publication of your dogmatical condemnation of millions of Christians—from the very first article , on the 7 th of January , 1843 , to which I sent my first correction of your assumptions , to that of the 16 th of December last—is highly reprehensible , and evinces an intolerant spirit , quite at variance with the charitable precepts of the Catholic faith . If our Bishops felt compelled to warn the faithful against certain " secret societies , '' the editor of a Catholic journal bad no right to put his interpretation upon pastorals and lettersmuch less attempt to palm his opinions of the force and value
, of papal decrees upon his readers . Had the writer confined his denunciations to " secret societies , " dangerous to the State , and of infidel tendency , no one could have found fault . But when it is asserted boldly , that all Freemasons are infidels , the temerity of such an announcement is only equalled by the falsity of so ignorant and uncharitable an assumption . What is Freemasonry truly represented ? A secret society , or universal brotherhood , more ancient than Christianity—using a secret sign—bound hy a ( so called ) secret oathor affirmation ( to secrecy )—divided into
nume-, rous Lodges over the whole world , to which members are admitted according to certain ceremonies ( for the sake of excluding improper persons ) , and rising by grades—governed by officers , under one head or Grand Master , in each respective country—instituted for purposes simply convivial and purely charitable , having no connexion with either POLITICS or RELIGION . The principles of Freemasonry are the love of God above all things , —our neighbour as ourselves , —obedience to the State and to all superiors , —brotherly love , and universal charity .
But your one-sided announcement , upon the ridiculous principle of the Duke of , that you have a right to do as you like with your ownvilify whom you please , without allowing a defence—that " the remonstrance , had it come from any but a clergyman , WE certainly should NOT