Correspondence letter by “Disculpa” | Editor’s Note by H.P.B.
A Protest
As a subscriber to the Theosophical Publication Society, I have lately received their Pamphlet No. 6, the first paper in which is an able and interesting exposition of the doctrine of Re-incarnation, signed “T. B. Harbottle.” It contains, however, one statement with regard to the teaching of the Christian churches so astonishing, and, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, so incorrect, that unless some abler pen than mine should be first in the lists, I must beg your permission to break a lance with the (otherwise) learned occultist; and though Mr. Harbottle’s paper appears separately, I take it that Lucifer is the Arena in which theosophical questions such as these may be fought out.
I will begin by quoting certain passages from Mr. Harbottle’s paper, page 6. “Protestantism offers no scheme of punishment for those who are partly bad; no reward for that which is good in those who are partly evil… What is necessary, according to the teachings of Protestantism, is repentance and faith… With these, a man is released from the necessity of fighting his lower nature… The Church of Rome has preserved, in her doctrine of purgatory, a punishment for the evil done by those who are not wholly bad, and so far her teaching is somewhat more philosophical and logical than that of Protestantism; but she teaches, also, that faith is the first requisite… In neither section of Christianity, indeed, is there any recognition of the necessity of that self-conquest which is the basis of the Theosophical system of ethics. Both believe in a divine grace which, descending into the heart of man, takes as it were the battle out of his hands and relieves him from responsibility and possibility of failure.” (The italics are mine.)
With regard to what may be the “teachings of Protestantism,” I do not intend to deal, because Protestantism being a congeries of innumerable sects with very various teachings, it is impossible to speak of each separately, and I should be certain to fall foul of some. But as a member of the Roman Catholic Church, which is the “Mother and Mistress”¹ of all Christian Churches and from which they are all derived, in a greater or less degree, I can speak with certainty, because all her children are taught the same doctrine, and are trained, up to a certain point, in the same practice.
Now, what is the earliest teaching given to the young, and to converts? That “we must renounce the devil (evil of every kind) and all his works”; that “we must follow the rule of life taught by Jesus Christ,” that we must love one another, “never allowing ourselves any thought, word or deed to the injury of anyone,” that we must “forgive our enemies, from our hearts”; that we must deny ourselves “by giving up our own will, and by going against our own humours, inclinations, and passions”; that “we must take up our cross by submitting with patience to the labours and sufferings of this life, embracing them willingly for the love of God”; and that “we must watch and fight against all temptations.”
All these quotations are extracted from the Catechism taught to every child. Now these are not theoretic teachings merely, but are enforced from an early age in the confessional, that “powerful engine” as our enemies call it; and they are right, for confession, and the right preparation for it, if a man is sincere, teach him to know more of himself and of what he really is, than anything else I know of. The Catechism teaches moreover, that no absolution is effectual unless joined to contrition, namely, “a hearty sorrow for sins, with a firm purpose of amendment,” and to “satisfaction,” namely, making reparation for injury done, and doing any penance imposed.
Now if anyone sees in all this “no recognition of the necessity of self-conquest,” and thinks that the battle is taken out of a man’s hands, and that he is relieved from “responsibility,” he must be wilfully blind or woefully perverse.
Apart from the confessional, there are the “powerful engines” of the pulpit, of the personal influence of the priest in house-to-house visitation, in the Offices for the sick and dying, in Confraternities for men, for women, for families; of the ministrations of nursing sisters, of Little Sisters of the Poor, of the Brothers of St. Vincent de Paul, of the Christian Brothers, and other educational bodies. Each and all of these represent the hand of the strong held out to protect the weak, to raise the fallen, to help if it be but one soul to bear the burden of life, and to fight the battle of sin, and sorrow and suffering.
How often are we reminded of the words of St. Augustine: “God made us without ourselves, but He will not save us without ourselves!” and it is a Catholic poet who says:
“ And does the road lead uphill all the way?
Yes; to the very end.
And will the journey last the whole, long day?
From morn to night, my friend.”
The fight can never be given up; one by one the passions must be subdued, trodden down, or rooted out; and those who find the attractions and temptations of this wicked world too strong for them, or even too interrupting for the pursuit and cultivation of the Spiritual life, are fain to retire into the seclusion of the monastery; and they make the “Great Renunciation” not in order—as the unknowing often assert—that they may lead lives of idleness and luxury, but that, face to face with themselves and with the Eternal, they may rise upon the “Stepping-stones of their dead selves to higher things.”
Mr. Harbottle will, I am sure, forgive me if I appear to have classed him among the “unknowing” ones. That is far from my thought; but in this vast field in which we are fellow-students, and may even, I hope, be fellow-workers, each can point out to another some corner yet untilled, the fruit of which is necessary to complete the whole fabric of philosophy. And if Theosophists desire to set forth the truths underlying all religions, they must first take care to have a correct knowledge of those religions, and not to misrepresent teachings the facts concerning which can be easily verified.
In my humble opinion, our object should be to heal breaches, not to increase their number; and by fairness and charity to bring nearer the great Day of Reconciliation, desired by all true lovers of Truth and of mankind.
Discipula.
Editor’s Note [H.P.B.]
We denounce the claim, that the Roman Catholic Church is “the Mother and Mistress of all Christian Churches,” as one of the many arrogant assumptions made by Papism, and which are neither warranted by history nor by fact. For, while history shows it to be quite the reverse of truth, facts are there to withstand “Peter to the face” once more. If Greek Ecclesiastical History is to be set aside, there are Dean Stanley’s Lectures to prove the facts; and the Dean, as an historian, was surely an unprejudiced authority.
Now what do both history and the Dean say? That the Christian Church began her existence as a colony of Greek Christians, and of Grecianized, Hellenic Jews. The first and earliest Church Fathers, such as Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, etc., etc., wrote in the Greek language. The first Popes were Greeks, not Italians, the very name “Pope” being a Greek not a Latin name, “Papa” meaning father. Every Greek priest is called to this day “papa” and every Russian priest “Pope.”
The first quarrels which led to the separation of the Church, into the Latin and the Greek or Eastern, did not take place earlier than the IXth century, namely, in 865, under the Patriarch Photius; while the final separation occurred only in the XIth century, when the Latin Church proclaimed herself with her usual arrogance the one universal Apostolic Church and all others Schismatics and Heretics! Let our esteemed correspondent read History, and see what happened at Constantinople, on May 16, 1054. She will then learn that on that day a crowd of Roman delegates, led by Humberto, broke into the cathedral of St. Sophia, and laid down upon the altar their bull of anathema against those who would not follow them in their various innovations and schemes.
Thus it would seem that it was Latinism which broke off from the Greek Oriental Church and not the latter from Rome. Ergo, it is the Roman Church which has to be regarded not only as guilty of a schism but of rank heresy in the eyes of every impartial Christian acquainted with history. Hence, also, it is the Greek Oriental Church which is the “Mother and Mistress” of all other Christian Churches—if any can claim the title. Assumption of authority is no proof of it.
As to the rules of life taught by Jesus, if the Roman Church had ever accepted them, surely she would never have invented the infamy called the Inquisition; nor would she have slaughtered, in her religious fury and in the name of her God, nearly 50,000,000 of human creatures (“heretics”) since she came to power. As to her rules and ethics, she may pretend to teach people to “forgive their enemies from their hearts,” but she takes good care never to do so herself. Nor can Christian endurance or “renunciation of self” ever reach the grandeur in practice of the Buddhist and Hindu devotee. This is matter of history too.
Meanwhile, “God the Father,” if this person could be conveniently consulted, would surely prefer a little less “lip-love” for himself, and a little more heart-felt sympathy for Humanity in general, and its suffering hosts in particular. “Little Sisters” and big “Christian Brothers” do frequently more mischief than good, especially the “Nursing Sisters,” as some recent cases can show.