The weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1869-18??, 1870-06-01
For the Standard.
Papal InfaIlib;litY.
Respectfully,
W. A. SMITH,
Pres't. n C. r. R. Co.

Some time ago we penned brief article
on this subject. 1t was our intention SIM
ply to guard our readers against too hastily
forming conclusions on one of the mos. mo-
mentous questions that perhaps ever engag-
ed the attention of the world. Whatsoever
be the religious opinions of those who watch
the deliberations of the present Council, its
acts cannot be viewed with anything but the
most lively interest by every thinking mind.
1t would be foolish to imagine that the
Catholic church is not a great, wonderful
power operating through all the avenues of
human thought and feeling. Statisticians
report not less than two hundred and fifty
millions of people acknowledge the sover-
eighty OF the church of Rome. Her adhe-
rents embrace every order of intellect, every
rank, every condition of society. Her stand
ard is everywhere reverenred, from the fash
ionable metropolist to the densest haunts of
forest lite. A religious organization embo
dying in this way all the elements of mans
existence, is of necessity, a system which it
would be worse than foolish to undertake
Then taking account of this stupendous
power which this church exercises through
out the world. it will be granted we were
| right in cautioning our readers against
| being too fast in their examination of reports
concerning the council in session at the
Vatican.
In our former article, We pointed out the
absurdity of daily kilograms, purporting to
report from Rome the proceedings of this
body. Events have since manifested that
| the greater part of newspaper gossip has
| simply served to lead indiscriminating read
ers into labyrinths of ignorance and confu-
sion, regarding this assemblage and its
works. Too anxiously picking items that
seem to tell against Rome, many have been
| pitifully deceived. They have misunder
stood the nature of disputes that have arisen
regarding the definition (so-called) of Papal
Infallibility. In the discussion on this
| question, it is now, indeed, apparent that of
| the prelates assembled, several have depart.
| ed fiom views entertained by the majority
| But so far from these dissentions proving
| that the Council split on the Infallibility
| question, they demonstrate that Rome af-
| fords, even within her walls, the most ample
| liberty of discussion on point not yet
solemnly promulgated as dogma of her
faith. To what side soever the Council
leans when the vote of the bishops shall be
taken, it will remain, undeniable, that
even on a subject so nearly affecting the
listened to all assailants without once
imposing silence or restraint on those who
oppose the dogmatic PRONUNCIATION of this
doctrine. To the honor of the Pope it will
be repeated in history, that before taking
the vote of the Bishops on this vital ques-
tion he invites the assemblage to an untram-
melled discussion of its merits, and holds
the mantle of protection over those who ex-l
press opinions not agreeing with hIssown;
Sentiments. A broader liberty than this
was never accorded in the senate chamber
of any land to the combatants of any prin-
ciplc. If this is not the LibertdS .Jfli0,um
Del, it cannot be enjoyed on earth.
But let US pause here. All this noise re
peated by the newspapers, all this discus
sion, all this difference of opinion among
the Fathers of the Council-what is it a.
Does it refer to the main point at issue p
Docs it turn on the great question of Infali-
bility? Does it mean that there is any Sc.
rious disagreement in the Catholic church
touching this article2 Not at all. ANY one
who has for his information carefully look
ed into reliable reports understands that the
doctrine itself of Papal Intalibility is not
the pivot on which discussion has been
turning. And it is precisely here that
| Catholic readers have been deluded. They
have been confounding two questions. SEN
sation newspaper men have made them mix
up uninteligibly two questions, in them
| selves distinct. The first of these questions
is, whether the Pope is infalible when
teaching solemnly-er- Cathedra-the uni
versal church on matters of faith and NOR
ais The other is, whether it be necessary
cxpedient, or if you will, polite, to bring
this question up for dogmatic promulga-
ton by the present council Keep this dis.
-tinction in mind. 1t will simplify your
ideas regarding the controversy going on in
Rome, and you will read with more satlsfac-
ton the reports of future deliberations.
There is very animated controversy going
on as to whether there be need at present
for taking concilatory action on the doc
trine OF lnfalibility. Is it expedient2 Is it
polite to couch this doctrine IN dogmatic
formula? Would it not be well to leave it
as it stood hitherto? For, be it remarked,
the Catholic church has always held the
identical doctrine which she is now reques-
ted to dctine. 1t stands there precisely as
did the doctrine of the Immaculate Concep-
ton previous to its dogmatic promalga.
ton only few years ago.