Delbaere has read McMaster's article called, "a False and Pernicious Criticism," and writes McMaster that his own criticism is itself, erroneous and unitentionally unjust in several respects. De Consilio spoke of two non-catholics uniting in marriage, who, though admitting the possibility of a divorce, a vinculo, by an error of understanding, yet mean for the time being to give their free consent to the marriage. Delbaere believes McMaster has italicized some of these words himself, but even if the writer italicized them, it would still not be fair to interpret him as if he said that such parties only consent to a marriage for the time being. Such a statement would be false and pernicious. The true meaning of the writer is that; if the parties really intend to contract a valid marriage at the time the contract is made, even though they see the marriage as dissoluble through an error in understanding, the marriage is still valid, If this were not true, no marriages of any kind outside the Catholic Church would be valid, because only Catholics are free from this error in understanding. This is similar to Baptism in which it is only necessary to have the general intention to do what Christ instituted and what the Church does, in order to make the act valid, even though the administrator of the Baptism is full of wrongs and heretical notions concerning Baptism, the Church, and Christ. McMaster claims that his critic has inferred from his remarks that a marriage between baptized non-Catholics is not a Sacrament, but Dolbaere has understood McMaster's remarks to mean the same thing. McMaster is correct in saying that there is no such thing as a Protestant baptism, but is does not follow from that, that all validly baptized persons can be called Catholics. Thus, McMaster's statement that marriage is a Sacrament between Catholics only, is quite obscure if he means to include all validly baptized persons. Delbaere believes McMaster is a little unguarded and too sweeping in his remarks on the granting of dispensations. The Council of Trent has defined as an article of faith, the power of the Church to grant dispensations even in impediments. The Sovereign Pontiffs have granted very ample faculties to the Bishops of remote countries to dispense in cases of the nearest degrees and strongest impediments, simply because they expect the Bishops will have occasion to use them. Rome has even granted dispensations after they have been refused here. No matter how much the Church opposes mixed marriages, often much good comes from them. For instance, St. Monica, in marrying a pagan converted her husband and gave us St. Augustine. Such cases are rare, but not impossible in our day. Delbaere believes that McMaster's inference against his critic in regards papal dispensations is uncalled for because the critic had no need or occasion to mention such dispensations. Despite the authority of Gury and Könings, whom McMaster quotes to prove that marriage between a baptized and a non-baptized person is only a contract, Delbaere believes that this statement is false. The Civilta Catholica, in an extensive article on marriage, with its arguments based on papel definitions and most thorough and luminous theological reasons, holds and definitely proves that the Sacrament is always inseparable from the contract in baptized persons and that the baptized person in a mixed marriage necessarily receives the Sacrament while the unbaptized does not. The view or Dr. Könings on Papal dispensations is a twofold pleonasm because no such contract between baptized and non-baptized is over valid except by papal dispensation. The Pope however does not have the power to effect that the contract be a Sacrament for the non-baptized party, not to prevent that it be one for the baptized party. The Civilta Catholica thus completely disposes of Gury. Delbaere in this criticism has not intended any of the spite or discourtesy of the original critic. :: I-2-c A.L.S. 5pp. 12mo