The New York herald., 1870-05-22

On ilustFous order who has furnished me the names
0I tns authors opposed to the Ponthcal infa!libty
N reference to the late Archbishop Of Baltimore,
Co9mitted mistake which Is more SUPERFICIAL IMAM
reaL In the old edition the author speaks OF the
fontincal infallibllisy as Q questionable dispute
We nnd the following % words @ at page 24l:-SNon
tanser placet ga loQuandt ratio qua PontOex, Sc
500 tyaut6Nts prsdtcdtur." (Yet We 40 not hke
that way OF speaking by which the Pope Is said to DC
infalible by himself even al0ne) Assuredly the
author OF that theological work openly contradicts
the defenders or the modern argument OF the per-
sona and separate infability Of the Sovereign Pom.
tlfr.
The American prelates have a special reason
cal nfallibility. Neither Catholics nor Pro-
testants in our country admit that the
TO release subjects from their oath Of allegiance, and
TO transfer, when they please the Kingdom Of one
prince to another. Our citizens OF Irish birth, who
Church In the United States VIII have much dlfii-
cnity, de ea peiae, in admitting that Pope Adrian
he gave Ireland to Henry IL, King OF England On
the other hand the bulls Of ths Popes upon this SUBJ
ject are 50 clear and positive that the defenders Of
Ponthca nfallibility IN general believe themselves
forced 10 admit the temporal sovereignty OF the
Pope over the universe Adrian Nv. said most
specially, "Ad cujus lRomang ecclesi9l jus cam can.
cepissent. pertinere, nenini dubium esset." ITO
wnich-the Roman Church-De0ng that island and
al others which have received the fath as no one
WIN ever doubt.) That donation OF Adrian Nv. was
confirmed by his successor, Alexander III.
talk loudpaylent 81 hdut-of the privilege OF Pom
tifcal infalbility preserve at present Q profound
silence upon the other privilege which their preds'
Until now We have been permitted TO say that the
Catholic Church has nothing to do with these trans
actions and that 1t Is not responsible for all that the
Popes nave done or may do. But II these Pontiical
decisions become articles OF fah the Archbishop Of
baltimore WIN DC placed u an embarrassing position
matter OF liberty Of wOrship-de la h6ert6 des
cuttes-the explanations which Votre Grandeur be-
I(,k
peased small tempest which threatened the Church.
II our memory does not deceive US the documents
are In the manuscript u, Il appears to rs
happy 10 be able to subscribe by new explanations
when ADOPTING them. The Archbishop of Baltimore
general belief OF the Church relative to the infalll-
by OF the Wears OF Jesus Christ. In that case Will
1t not be best TO ask nothing more and TO leave
things where they are and where they have always
been?
Why does he ask for new definitions which do
violence TO the conscience OF several OF his colleagues
In the episcopatef Because several among us be-
lleve that ecclesiastical history fhe HISTORY Of the
Popes, the history Of the councils and the tradition
OF the Church are not In harmony with the new
dogma and that Is why believe that 1t very In
opportune TO wish to define as an article OF faith
opinion which appears to us TO lack any solid foun-
daton in Scripture and tradition while is contra
dicted by many irrefragble monuments. 1t would be
out OF place to continue any longer discussion
which Is the business OF the Council But before
concluding we cannot refrain from expressing our
profound regret that the friends devoted in ap-
Greet zeal many painful questions where religion
has nothing to gain. But we have firm confidence
that the Holy Spirit viii illuminate all minds and
direct all hearts. We are convinced that the pro-
misses made to the Church and TO the Chair OF Peter
Will not fail, and that neither such or such party
or or sucn & or sucn D.,, man wil triumph put that
GREETING the circumstances which have obliged to
address you this letter. We remain no less the sincere
friends and admirers Of your antagonist as the hum
BILE servants Of Votye Grandeur IN 0ehar ana in the
name OF several Bishops or the United States Of
PETER RICHARD KENRICK,
Archbishop Of st. Louis.
JOHN BAPTIST PURCELL,
Archbishop Of Cincinnati.
THE ANIMUs AND EFFECT.
The above fully corroborates my former letters, IL
any were needed.
Your readers will not fail to note, and particularly
the sons Of the Emerald Isle. the force and unan-
swerable reference to good Adrain Of holy memory.
1t is grim joke for two archbshops to unearth the
donation Of Nicholas Breakspeare at this time. but
the fact is there are many, very many, eminent
bishops neartslck Of this manGuvre to place more
power in the hands of the Vatican clique and IL the
said faction continue to persist In their schemes Of
nallibility there VIII be more musty old documents
brought out that Will do Rome no good.
ANGLOIRISH INFLUENCE.
The Irish are good Catholics, q class and all the
thumb Of paul Cardinal Cullenn Of Dublin, and
"Henry Edward" OF Westminster; but there are
few OF them who believe that Adrian was infallibe
inspired by the Holy Spirit any other spirit but
tnat which influences men to 90 something for them.
selves, when he gave Ireland to Henry.
a New YORK state hat nSy yery
Father STAIRS, Vicar General Of the diocese OF New
York, has announced that the Pope has not con-
The holy Office has condemned both the
Irish and American Fenians The document was Is
sued after an animated discussion on the part Of the
ming defeated them, and both are condemned.