Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 14, No. 12. September 20, 1951
[Letter to Salient from Logician]
It remains true that Dr Munz's statement that Loisy had good historical reasons for disagreeing with the Pope is simply a non-specialist opinion, worth no more than the next man's. As for his statement that "Loisy was an honest man," it is ridiculous. Loisy pretended to be a loyal Catholic long after he had ceased to believe in the Divinity of Christ. Loisy's Memoirs make it clear that he was no longer a Christian, and probably not even a theist, as early as 1892. Excommunication is not, as Dr Munz seems to think, "a way of dealing with the likelihood of error," but a way of preventing dishonest persons like Loisy from teaching as Catholic truth that which is actually erroneous.
"I know quite enough," Dr Munz declares, "in order to say that trans-substantiation was not part of the beliefs held by the primitive church, because the very word is first met with only during the 12th century." What an argument! The word was coined only in the 12th century; therefore people could not have believed in the change it designated until that date. It is just like arguing that no one before 1700 knew wood burned or iron went rusty because the term "oxidation" was not coined until the 18th century. To prove that "transubstantiation was not part of the beliefs of the primitive church," Dr Munz will have to undertake a close study of the teaching of the primitive church on the Eucharist, to see whether it contains implicitly what is formulated explicitly and precisely in the-doctrine of trans-substantiation, in the meantime, his non non-specilist opinion on the subject is worth no more than the next man's.