THE Ecclesiastical Review A MONTHLY PUBLICATION FOR THE CLERGY Cum Approbatione Superiorum Vol. CII JANUARY —JUNE. 1940 ** Lt Ecclesia aedificationem. accipiat." I Cor. 14: 5. THE ACT OE THE MYSTICAL BODY. T TNDER the above title Dr. Joseph Fenton contributed to U The Ecclesiastical Review of May 1939 a very interest­ ing and important paper. Briefly reviewing certain modern writers on the Mystical Body, he more particularly mentions Fr. Mura. There are elements of mystical doctrine which escape these writers, and escape *' even the magisterial classification cf Fr. Mura ”. "According to this brilliant theologian (Fr. Mura), the Mystical Body of Christ is something which can be understood in function of four real causes—material, form efficient and final. The material cause is definitely the princm.-. not of unity but of multiplicity. The material cause of the Mystical Body is the head and the members, those who go to make up the fulness of Christ. The other three causes are principles of unity, and the Mystical Body is one by reason ci these. The formal cause is either exemplary or intrinsic. Tr.e Mystical Body is one by reason of exemplary causality because there is one and only one Model to which its members mu·: ■ conformed. That ultimate exemplar is the Incarnate Word- ’ Over and above these four causes of unity there is .’.n t."·principle of unity which has been omitted. This prircip:.’ ■■■ according to Dr. Fenton, that " we are deputized and empo'.'-’C'■ in a special way to make the act and the proper ocer.it>··” · * Chnst our own ”. This principle is Dr. Fenton’s thesis a?··’· t’ its explanation and development his paper is devoted. ·’■ ·'■ tnat wh’ch h the proper act ot the Head is the proper act o* the members ?. h-> are conkrir.ed whh Him,” since “the unity of me My-t cji Body -,s cn: and ;; d recced L t the farther rca-an that h s -tr king ab.'.ity and patent horcitv both praise and grat'eude. A- h:< treatment. er. without difficulties, to specify these d'fficultie·. sr.·.’.! .i ?.. <1 wad some power the eiftic ci.· u To -ce urscls as o-fie-s -ee us. As prJttmr.ar'e* his argume-t Dr. Fenton as-erts: Adam had sinned, the Second IV-son would r.-rt h^e * » I assumed a human nature " From the very moment of His conception Christ had merited eternal salvation for us in every act He performed, and every hardship He endured. But in the merciful decrees of Divine Providence it had been established that all these other merits of Christ should be ordered to and have their effects from and through the Passion itself.” Though my personal conviction agrees with Dr. Fenton’s first assertion, it may be well to remember that many theologians hold a different theory. These therefore, would find it difficult to accept any body of doctrine built exclusively upon it. As regirds his second assertion, the first portion seems directly taken from St. Thomas (S. Ill, Q. 48, a. I) ; the latter part conveys vhat is usually considered as the more common teaching of the i I I î I ί 1 t French theological school. In each case there are difficulties. Intrinsically any act of Christ, being theandric was quasi-mfinite in merit and so, super-abundantly sufficient to save the world. In a sense also, since a human nature was united to God, the Incarnation might be called the reconciliation of man with Gm. Yet, because the Father did not so will, none of these merited the salvation of the world. The Passion did not a «mW intrinsic to Christ’s acts, nor intrinsically did they J j f i . -,.J a««ly«WW» In fois sense they r»ay be consAred as prépara-·· red to rhe ” Passion; but it is very difficult t «ucr.,tar.d how they "have their effects from and through I J I .1 i • i 1 I the Passion itself ”. _ , view ■’<( proceeding to look more closely into r. en n ‘I will helo to recall the de fide teachings: The Cross andL· «V , -„e œd rPVr sacrifice: m everything Λ. ire one and the same sacrifice save in the m3nfe5,° Cross. t!lc alvïÜOT of ,U ron is due to Const ‘ Λ» an easy conclusion follows: Chose with lb&«. » -r 1 human being is the effeci of this essential urnse ■ ■i 308 THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW. his Summa (I, Q. 44, a. I and many other loci) St. Thomas de­ fines " participation ” as the effect of an essential cause. There­ fore only by participation in Christ and in His Cross can any human person be saved. As participation is used in many <,». perhaps it may be well to make a special note of what seems te be its correct theological meaning. Obviously since, according to St. Thomas, the sacred Humanity, the instrument of the Sec­ ond Person, ' instrumentally operates in virtue of the Divinity,” and the Passion of Christ, though corporeal, shared yet a cer­ tain spiritual virtue from the divinity,” whereby it ’ can id t . remission of sins,” it follows that participation in Const ml ■ His Passion saves us and makes us '' partakers iff the do..u nature ”? There is another point which requires emphasis. Christ t”·.· principal agent is a free cause; men who receive Christ’s salutary effects are aiso free. The causal relation between Christ and men will always be such as befits and preserves the individui and mutual treedom of each and all. The freedom, thrrctore. of members of the Mystical Body' is conserved both in their union and relations with one another and also in their unions anC «elnt.ons wita Christ. The end and purpose of Chri/.’s it and relations With men is to enable them in union w.t.’. H··”.·. pj·.dace and perfect n themselves, individually and collec'Tei». supernatural and eternal life, unto the greater pin.·;’ of G-d. only lite c,,n £.,!{.Jtvs char Chn-t’s .’.ouïr .ha .irj produces a liv.ng effect which is supernatural! y and v-tally perfective. Thus Dr. lent, a con-iders th.it " f’e t.t:ocr et Cnr SUteR1CaLs words " sacramentally ” and " d r.Tik3V suggest Dr. Fentcr/s view, w.fich may r.· w uj T.'texplicitly treated. h seems co.-recc to -ay that Dr. Fenton iv.« n < doctrine c f the sacramcorT ch iractcr. “ ;' :c ' wh.it is properly the doctr'nc of the Mvsticaî B dv a THE ACT OF THE MYSTICAL BODY. 309 Thomas is contained in the question on the sacramental charac­ ter,” His argument is subtle but is not free from ambiguity. For example, he says: " The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ”. This is of course quite true. But the Church con­ sists of a " soul ” and “ body ”. It would not be correct to say dut all who belong to the " soul ” also belong to the " body ” or vice versa. In this or in similar ambiguities seem to lie the diffi­ culties and perhaps the weaknesses which enter his argument. No doubt, according to St. Thomas, a sacramental character is a spiritual power or an “ instrumental potency ” which " en­ ables man to enter into an activity of which Christ is the princ­ ipal cause in His Passion ”. " It is an abiding instrumental potency, and as a result the character does not fall under the natural designation of the second species (a permanent virtus) ΰΐ quality, but is only reduced to it.” Quite so; the permanent ' virtus” or its active power, is from Christ; the permanent potency of uniting authoritatively in a special way with Christ's virtu? ” or activity, is the sacramental character. The point is that merely in itself the sacramental character is not united to Christ's activity. A person with a sacramental character, though authoritatively deputed to divine worship, is yet a sep­ arate instrument of Christ, and not a conjoined instrument like Christ's own Human Nature. Such person, therefore, requires to be duly united with Christ’s activity by sufficient intention and will as well 2s by certain other divinely appointed means, cetore the character operates with Christ’s activity, making the person for the time being an efficient instrument of that activity, Cur.y rffis union with Christ’s activity continues no longer fcun this particular act. A priest’s character is operative with Christ’s activity only while the priest is consecrating or saci if:cwg, or giving some sacrament which requires the power of Holy Ct-ters, but not at other times. This operation and union are permanent but transitory. A sacramental character is in ΐ’β®η with Christ's activity, therefore, either while a person is v-iudly receiving or administering a sacrament, whichever the Ca* ®ay be. ' ‘'.co D_- renter, writes: " The enduring quality which con‘ ‘’ite; j. ϊ; members of the Church is the character of BapIT· d'fficulties at once arise. It can hardly be maintained iVit -·.· character of Baptism constitutes us " as members of the 3 10 ΓίΖ£ ECCLESIASTICAL REVIENT. Church ”. Many who have no baptismal character, because they are in the state of grace belong to the soul of the Churcn and are therefore members of the Church. Many' also who have a baptismal character do not belong to the “ body " of ths Church, such as, heretics, schismatics, vitandi excommunictti: if these are not in the state of grace, they are in no way members of the Church. Those in hell who, according to many theol­ ogians, still retain their baptismal characters, are not members of the Church.* Undoubtedly, Baptism and the Eucharist '' m re or " in voto ” are necessary for salvation and ter ChurJ; membership; but obviously this does not establish that the en­ during ^quality which constitutes us as members of the Church is the character of Baptism. Though the character of Baptism is an essential element that one may belong to the " body ” of the Church, it does not seem correct to state, as does Dr. Fenton, t at the man who has the baptismal character belongs to an organization which worships God as an instrument of Christ; ” η . Q. J. , '·■’ 4. ■■.g·-··, (·.Ι,,η. t. Q. ej. 1. * c. β·. Cj.''’•■«■ka ■’ Tl THE ACT OF THE MYSTICAL BODY. 311 incorporates us in the activity of Christ’s Passion. These he tells us are due to grace and faith. As supernatural faith is not first grace, such faith always presupposes grace. He also implies that faith is necessary for the valid reception of the sacraments; hence the words lt per fidem et sacramenta ”. A person with the use of reason cannot be validly baptized unless that person has sufficient faith. Persons perpetually devoid of the use of reason (lunatics from birth and always) and infants, by divine ordi­ nance, are endowed with the faith of the Church unto and in the vaEd reception of baptism in re. Thus baptism is called " the sacrament of faith ”. It is remarkable that St. Thomas dees not mention " sacramental character ” in his beautiful treatment of Christ’s Mystical Body in Summa ΙΠ, Q. 8, a. 3. It :s therefore very difficult to see that Dr. Fenton’s statements • ft.· are correct or correctly convey the teaching of St. Thomas. From what has been said it will appear that, according to the i■ tic teaching, only the Sacred Humanity of Christ is His u med” instrument. The Mystical Body is not a “ coni-c.i ’’ but a " separate ” instrument of Christ. It is united to -:n z:.rough the " conjoined instrument ” by grace and faith, and by sacraments received in voto or in re. When members of the .Mystical Body possess the baptismal character they are authontatively deputed and enabled to avail of Christ’s special activ­ ity in the other sacraments—a special activity of which they -yaid not avail without a baptismal character. Positis ponendis, ΰκ baptismal character enables one to receive not only other laments which do not impress a character but those which do; those which do give a special consecration unto divine worS'"ip, and the character of priesthood enables the priest to make Christ and His sacrifice really and truly present on earth in the Holy Eucharist. Each character also carries with it a particular graa unto its proper use. Yet as divine worship is ever a " proV:.- . fidei; ” and faith abides in the intellectual powers of the ■ ■ ■ ;o too does the sacramental character. This establishes the fundamental union of men with Christ through grace and faith; irl -/.e great importance of the sicrament-il character. The i.t special interest is tli.it. even without a sacramental '·' i-a.ter grace and faith cm and do urr.te a man to Christ and 312 27Π.' ECCLES!AFICAL HEVILTF. by a baptismal or further sacramental d„„ct„. VH; t, been tatd should help Ac furA„ eIaniirari.„ p. Fenton'ss paper. rcnton Since the sacramenta! character is an instrumenta! pote.-cv. str 1 ent°k pr0CCeds to arSue: " Th* principal cause and the in­ strument have one act, and one ctfeet. The act of the prineba! tr,,rk Π °f C10 instrumcnr·” Though there is a certain ’ in . ,$ aigurncnt, there is also ambiguity. It has been U/e y1” -at t‘nies m'Jch abused, by various writers, ir.ptan . omerw ise. The explanation of St. Thomas, found r. um<_rous pa^sjges of his works, may be taken as both safe arc correct. Take S. IV, Q. 97, a. 5, 3: "Instrumentum autem mt ·. Un^ a®!"' *n v*rtutÇ propria ct per modum proprium, sed etiiT. . agentis et secundum quod est reguStJ" * C°‘ » ,re, lî: 1S c‘ear tll3t an instrument has a ” i r.u propna . Inoeed in S. I, Q. 45, a. 5, he considers the:. n nstrument hao no act and nothing proper to itself. it were Jess and! tool„sh to use it. Only with and through this u’t ’ y g-r-· PCCUi:Jr to Ε'ηδ ^-frument niUO acC‘nncm· nis‘ exercendo actionem program ’ O a‘)· Agent and instrument oroduce the one and botn act in the activity of Λβ age;t. To say ώεη chi: tne act of the principal cause is the act of the inscrumcat ’ s ^rue in one sense but nc>c rruc .p another. ; . r. ΓΧΪ blihC'P’ nOt C-1ri't’ P^nounces the wve; t’:.· ? ·> cor···’ αηί.'ΐηΕ’ W:tr' cnrism. Hence it would hare.·/ ϊ’ L5 ■'*' tilat b,',hop s proper act is Christ's proper act. ‘ S tne act of Christ as principal igent is unir id «"th r·. c.r™{S ?Cu 3-‘d ?roJucc'· t:’-e supernatural .mJ •aeram"- ’ wh;'l 'Ι1ίς:'Λ·!θ* tr-ü ^iyst;ca! Body has ;;s own pr’pcr a-"· r-.-err,· prônai action or Christ, and wh.ch. cti.y m s A^cnt € ien&i Can bc ^Cs‘gn:1-te^ act of Christ, the Pri.ici~’- Dr- Fenro?? perlj^i ■■nrerc,-u.-’.5 porri r >■ Ho'ir£uci.,i-i’ape^.filSC on sacrifice of the Mass and τι tl'e the it,w -■ J b« tfei: c;,r,: i sub xen-’s V.v ·ϊ·. ,pSüm jb Eccksi.1 pc.- '-s-otlim» munohndumHence all are agreed that THE ACT OF THE MYSTICAL BODY. 313 i no priest may lawfully say Mass—nor indeed anyone lawfully * receive any sacrament—without due permission from the I Church. Does Trent mean to convey more than this by the i words " the sacrifice of Himself by the Church through (priests ”? It seems historically certain that " immolandum ” signifies here " complete sacrifice ” and not merely the element i of sacrifice called “ immolation ”, Fr. de la Taille and some ‘ others do think that Trent does mean more; their interpretation ! et Trent seems influenced or dictated by their own personal view of the meaning of Sacrifice. Dr. Fenton somewhat suggests de la Taille’s theory; so let the examination proceed. ■' In the eucharistie sacrifice ”, he writes, " the Mystical Body acts as the instrument of the Passion of Christ, and in this sacrlpriai operation it makes the Passion of Christ the act of the Church. The sacrifice of the Mass is, then, in a special and metaphysical sense, the act of the Mystical Body, the tremendous instrumental function in which the baptized person is empowered to participate.” He then subjoins: “ The Mystical Body of Christ is that organization which exists to offer the sacrifice of i tne Mass.” (Italics mine.) Now according to Dr. Fenton all I vno Have the baptismal character are members of that ” organj izacion ” and all share in the act of offering, yet not all in the ? same way. For the Church is an ” ordered hierarchical ociÎ «7:!? and so also is the sacrificial act of the Church ” an ordered j hierarchical act.”—Priests are agents and hat e an act.ve : ancothers not priests, are recipients and have a passive ^unc‘ I tion. Further, " Because this action is one in vh:ch the Churcn -•ai.i' its own the very passion of the Redeemer, the priest who performs this act of sacrifice is said in all truth to assume tne i person of Christ Himself.” s From these statements, it would seem that Dr. Fenton unuerf stands the words of Trent " se ipsum . . . imm/ar.Jum " a- t--.I of Christ to be offered by the Church. The f - ore, has r~o essential elements: toe passion or Cm-st ! ablation of the same by the Church. If either be absent, tr.rc ί ώ no Miss. Hence he considers this Church-oblatmn j; and metaphysical ” or pertaining to the essence, ana ’j■■■■'■ " aacrificiai Now this Church-oblation, whicn tr.u, ζ ‘ ·- r-.ery Mass, being the act of an ' oiganiz*—m. , ni which all members of the organization have an o ; . « J. I I i ‘ , ! ,4 314 4 THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIFv. hierarchical share; for (some) members, besides having th. character of baptism, may also have the character of the r.'-i-r of priesthood. Thus later Dr. Fenton speaks of the "pcopb ’ communicating spiritually in Masses at which the priest a.; ' -* communicates sacramentally. Finally, through this Chart ■· offering the priest enters into Christ’s offering, or the one oiering of the Principal Priest, and so assumes " the person of Chris: Himself ”, quam nisi ex parte Ecclesiae, nec quisquam consecrat valide, nisi vere offerens. Quod si sacerdos praecisus non possit ex pare Ecclesiae offerre, sequeretur eum nec valide posse consecrare.’’ By lus sacerdotal character a priest is deputed as a legate ··: tiChurch and ever retains the character of legate: yer he di- 4 5 mat oi acting lor the Church. Hence when a heretic, ■ matic, or excommunicatus celebrates Mass, no: as a min:'·-·' ’ the Church but absolutely and solelv as an officiai ot r.i{ sett. '■ Mass is no Mass, and is invalid. It is difficult to say - *■ Fenton would agree that the priest’s intention here waild r.r·. ‘ the efficacy of his sacramental character, granted that sue:’, yr really wished to say Mass. Obviously Fr. de la Tallies th:·.· lies at the root of his own solution in this matter, but - h * quite so oovious that Dr. Fenton personally holds that theor The present purpose is not minute criticism of that theory but rutr.er to indicate the difficulties found in Dr. Fenton’s νιβ< and incidentally what seems discrepant with St. Thomas. Save m rhe manner of offering, the Cross and the Mass sre tme and trie same sacrifice. The cross was offered for a3 ’ so r· ■ fe ’5 ΠΙ. Q. 82, a. 1, 2. 3 s. in, Q. g, ». 3j J 4<-‘. $ ÏII, Q. vi, g. 3(J 1. "Unij nostra Deum ew per operationes»! û» eura cognoscimus et amamus; et id« rJis on‘° est P” gratiam ■ •'Hteaiem, ÙS operatio perfecta procedit ab habitu.” 316 ■ w I •i f ■ ■ I THE ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW. Êciently indicated, without giving here further and prolix quoration. This is the teaching of Trent, which calls faith the ' fundamentum et radix omnis Justificationis; sine qua impossible est placere Deo. (Heb. St. Paul writes to ώ Ephesians (3: 17) : " That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts: that being rooted and founded in charity... ” It is very difficult to see, therefore, that Dr. Fenton’s statements fuahmentally represent the teaching of St. Thomas or even the fund­ amental teaching of Trent. Incidentally, he does not seem correctly to use the words of the Council in the following passage: "Even those Masses in sidercd common to the Church as a whole, 'partly beceux’ -■ί-1 people communicate spiritually in them, and partly because tnr' are celebrated by a public minister of the Church, r.ot f.w hi.”· self alone but for ail rhe faithful wh.-> W,w>· to rhe BoJ" Christ·. 3^ornm’Jn-'C3tCî·· yea more, st strongly commends tiu: · Uv . . j, chey are to be considered trulv common, on i.i one tiana fpartiiu) the "people should make a s-mtu.'! rvw ηιιΗ'θη Πηα °n £^e ot^L'r ip^riim) that they be celebrated ’ the Çhurch, not for himself alone, but e«'-r a: ”■ pertain to the Bode of Chr-’st—Atoue ;c‘” ÎTdTÎ': con^ctr. rartim v“’ h'“fUn,1 ^uod,Jn eii populus spiritu.mter c^-ro·^-·· ’urn v. f t ° '1U'd, a PUDUCO Ecclesiae ministro non ore· v t3:> XX™'™ °MnA“’ Corp», Cfasf : : :·^· Thi and rrue 'ίΓΐνη6;Κ1'οπ seems implicity to acknowledge licit sp:rlcuj!h· SV'° 1Λ /yiIJCh neither the ceople contmim.c::-Vystxal BoX *jc Ρξ:ε« celebrates for all the fa>hiu! '•f the the correct - “r - ™ΚΙΟΓβ ω «c -F-t Dr. Fenton g.· -■ tradicr jy„ ye„. ° t.us quotation. Trent also seems w ver tR- «« rf&ZXiS* t!“ s’crM“ :he " ll’■' Church can be designated as the Mystical Body ot C:u: ’ ·'■ ■' ambiguity or equivocation. 2. Fatner Brosnan’s difficulty. ’’ Whan Dr. Fentc-n ' The enduring quality which constitutes us .is membtr- er t Church is rhe character of Baptism, difficulties at cnce ar.se· can hardly be maintained that the character of Baptbi" c- n* tutes us as members .->f the Church ’. Manv wE.i ha’-c n·' b tismal character. recause they arc in the state f grace .·?!<”·? t-.î the soul c>* me Church ana are thcrctorc merace:» -f :W Cnurch. Many ah<> who hive a baothmal character d·» ~ot long to the ’ body ' nf the Church, ceh a<. heretic-. ■£?.'■■«»■■ -'s' vitand: cxcr-mmunicati: if the-c are not in rhe sra’.e of taey are in no way member- of the Church." Tnc rcsolutwn. This h the tenth thesis in E:h t'·.-iP · ”c’< :'J' Id quod prime- er principaliter reqv:r:tur at -wJs «’ i'c ■■ ,e membrum, c-t character bapti»r.-.ali-. l-que non -'ctaf-.e -’ ■ · sed in rei veritate susceptu-·. Porro rar.ta c affici- ' " ' ïeriPer a?gnS^ hominem imitati cr-porh Vc/· -athohcie. Ideo iüi on-ne; qui usum rationis nondum .·■: " : ■· 's, Ill j!’...... '&1 Λ ' "■ ' Tfwo-’H 3 J.ll-t *η.*4ί;', Tjâ 'b ’ · jjg THE ACT OF THE MYSTICAL BODY. ; · > ι » î qaecumque tandem modo et a quibuscumque sacramentum bap­ tismatis vere acceperunt, ipso facto inter vera corporis membra numerantur ”.2 Tbe traditional theologians reserve the designa­ tion " member of the Church ” for those who possess the charac­ ter of Baptism, excluding even the catechumens. Thus Herrmann writes: " Catechumeni, etiamsi corde credant et fidem txterlus profiteantur, atque legitimis pastoribus subjicantur, in­ ter Ecclesiae membra non sunt computandi.” 3 J. Father Brosnan’s objection. "It does not seem correct to !-te, as does Dr. Fenton, that the man who has the baptismal character belongs to an organization which worships God as an zstniment of Christ, nor that, ' the Thomistic teaching on the sacramental character affords us the basis for a properly dynamic <.r -ê -ίση, R ;>-.e. 1«’, J? Ecdi.is . -* ·· · » · ια-ΐ « t T I THE ECCLESIASTICAL RaiLT. 320 of Trent. Incidentally, he does not seem correctly to use £„■ words of the Council in the following passage.—It is hard there­ fore, co see that Dr. Fenton gives the correct meaning of this quotation. Trent also seems to contradict Dr. Fenton’s view." The resolution. The passage at issue is that in which the words of the Council of Trent (Session 22, Chapter 6) were used in the article. Father Brosnan’s difficulty is merely hs faulty translation of the words of the Council. He rcai.· : :.· text in such a way as to suppose that the Fathers urge the people to communicate spiritually at Mass, and the priest to celebrate is a public minister, not for himself alone, but for all the faithful who pertain to the Body of Christ. Actually the Council ap­ proves and commends Masses at which the priest alone communi­ cates sacramentally, since they are to be considered as comtnea, “ partly because the people spiritually communicate in them, and partly because they are celebrated by a public minister of tfe Church, not for himself alone, but for all the faid’.tu; '.· long to the Body of Christ.” A glance at the text of the - - · gives sufficient evidence that every Mass is, as a matter oi tact, offered for all the members of that Church, the proper and per­ fective act of winch is this ’..une Eucharistic sacrifice.4 cheerfully admit that Father Brosnan's trar. dation seems to contradict the doctrine put forward >n '' T.’ie Act ■ I Mystical Bodv.” JOjU'H C. i"i. -'e'·'· ibt Catholic V-üi ersity of America. ® Γ*"” " S?/4. S «r V v v V % WM .M tf ,lc ;r:nsii:*o-% ci *■«*/· Je T·^ > <’«> - TOWARD MORE FRUITFUL PREACHING In behalf of both Pew and. Pulpit. '"THERE SEEMS to be no limit to which men will go of means to gain an end. It was not surprising that atheistic enthusiasts for state absolutism should not scruple to try togain American favor by their vaunted devotion to democracy. ‘ he tremendous advantage of such action during the recent war n Spain justified in their mind the means to the end. But it is surprising and we are rightly shocked when a “ preacher ” for the pay of a paltry publicity declaims in favor of a moratorium on preaching. If there is humor in it, it is grim, indeed. As fell might an attorney advocate the outlawing of all litigation '·' ■ ro tblack mount bis p.-jl:d:ing-block and rant against the * ■■ g (f pol.srcd These would not thereby betray a :rcs Not ■>verlt.-.bk barrage of Catholic editorial reacar f, s •tatement of the New York minm..ratorium on preaching during u.v-1 of sum.-r r. With but a single exception, ï •w. rhat rea^t n was '* vox et praeterea nihil n came not from those professedly interested ; tl’.e Gc-pcl, but from a few zealous members t Jzed upon the incident as an occasion to call '.ct that tk.rc was not only not a surplus of r mere ’.va. not merely an insufficiency of it, y mo-.ir.ce-k t’.ier? was no preaching at all. ■ d u, ..re the warm weather excused from the ■J-η Ma;, t 1 Out-iber, and where announcec ".;va and sch.-o.· activities crowded the sery j '.adcle. not only in summer but through- r vmu· tde. :t has come to be known, thus Π'.-t .i c-K o* the "pew” dictating to the c <.-me d -ta'Ce.-uI to a CarhnEc layman's sense a.ues -inc smick ng .jf the dictatorship of the t· · J·· a ■t the crusacers realized all this is evidenced fn-.u--. ςϊ ^hose r· r tiit.r mo-cnent, The Crusr.de for ;te-j r and Hearing of the ’word or God." j v-ng antagc-.ujr.c and destructively critical, the