The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1870-05-15
Morning Star and Catholic Messenger.

LETTER oF ARcHBHHoP sPALDIHa.
The following letter addressed by Arch
bishop spalding to Mgr. Dupanloup, Bishop I
Of Orleans, has been published in the Con- |
tinental papers, but We copy from the Bal
timore Mirror. The time is so short before
the schensa on Infallibilty is defnitvely
settled, that any thing on the subject at this
late hour would seem superfuous. Besides
. all Catholics know practically where infal-
Utility resides, and hence are IN NO doubt
about tie matter.
We fo bear publishing the petition, which
makes jts first appearance in this country
: in the New York Herald.
Mu Lord I'm the letter which your
Grace has written to Mgr. the Archbishop
Of Malines, you do me an honor for which
find it impossible TO thank you: You y.
quote repeatedly u p0stMlatum which, In
concert with several Of my venerable col
leagues, had deemed proper to present to
the Council, at time when the question OF
infallibihty was far from the degree of ma
turty to which it has now arrived. Whilst
many Bishops, very devoted to the Holy
See, doubted still the opportuneness OF IN
Producing this question:, we asked III our
postulatam that it should be defined in
such manner as to bring In accord all the
yOnr quotations are SO arranged that your
readers must suppose us opposed, II not 10
the truth, at least TO the Opportuneness OF
this definition, and must class us, conse-
auently, with what the newspapers are
pie asei to style the party OF opposition IN
the Council.
1t is true that your Grace does not think
our opposition sufficiently decided, and
that after discussing our project In the
whole course of your letter, you discard II
do n
atrunent This mode of proceeding is I'M
doubtedly very flattering for US, but 1T does
not prevent your Grace from making us
play part Of auxiliaries which we are
compelled to repudiate.
It is without cause that an attempt
should be made to represent us as opposed
to declaration of the general belief OF tht
Church concerning the infallibility OF tht
Vicar of Jesus Christ Paragraph v. o
our rationes expresses the faith OF I'M
as to leave no doubt. In our project o
definition, it is there said, we unite In
timately the infallibility of the Roman
PontfY with the infallibility of the Church
and we present the former as the sequence
and corollary of the primacy, in such
manner that it extends as far and know
no other limits than the infalibillty of tn
Church and primacy itself. ltparticlpate
therefore, in the clearness and hxlty wit
which these principles have been e n5;SH
therefore, that this mode of definition la
the advantage of not furnishing either til
theoloyians or the faithful with any pr.
text To question and weaken by their o,
jections the DEGREES of the Sovereign roi
- tiff, whose Judgment must be accepted
all, lambs and sheep, with flial respect ar
love, as deciding in last resort all contr
versies."
Such, in fact, my Lord, was the sole o
iect of those who drew up the postasota
n s,,ko ted
They did not intend to put light under 81
bushel and disguise the belief. On the CO.
trary, they wished to find mode OF dehn
zion which would render this belief mo
inexpugnable and secure for it more unar
NOUS adhesion from the pastors and t
faithful. They thought they conid alta
this end by determining infallibility pra
tically and in concrete, rather than
affirming it in an abstract form. IN
therefore proposed to define; iss: 1hat
cannot be permitted to appeal from
sentences Of the Sovereign PontlH; ~
That every Christian owes to these az
fences internal assent and not merely
respectful silence; Sd. That Gallicanis
Sovereign Pontiff, and giving to the form
the right to reform the sentences OF
latter overthrows the order established
Jesus Christ, according to which 1t sbelo
to Peter to confirm his brethren and no,
iexpect from them his confirmation;
FINALLY, chat the sentences OF tue rope
not less sovereign in the declaration OF d
NAUTICAL facts than in the deciding OF gu
tions of a purely doctrinm nature. )
was our project, of which your Grace 8
not a word, absorbed as your Grace Is
clipping from thu, purely Incidental p;
IF our Memoir the sentences fav"raoi
your thesis. Each of the four points we h
Indicated evidently supln'scs inial"oii
81 and consequently, it would he 'n'"nn'
standing entirely the Thought of those
asked its solemn definition, I" u ;'re'
them as favorable 10 the "pinipu {" the
epportunists.
Mor.uv.r, my i."d, it is rot ''''y
doctrine which Your letter presents
light the NEST opposed to truth.
note which, you say, was furnished you
q learned theologian Of illnstrious OF
Won quote q certain number of writer's
would have shared your opinion,
among them You class my venerable
decessor in the See of Baltimore,
Francis p. Kenrick. do not know '
your other quotations are worth; and
believe persons who have had the lei
to verify them, your Grace in accep
blindly, has been the dupe of too much
Ndence. What can affirm, is, that 10
eau, without injustice, attribute TO
Kenrick doctrine different from tina
the immense majority of Catholic doc
IN his dormatical theology this prelatS