, 1870-05-22
INFALLIBILITY.
E5cntiCix nnd Purcell @,
the l0Yr11R.

We find in the Freeman's Journal New
1otk) translation. made BY its editor, OF
letter signed by Archbishop kenrica;, Of st.
Louis, and Archbishop Purcell, Of Cincinnati,
aud addressed to the Bishop OF Orlea.ls, o,,
the subject Of the dogma Of the Popes infalii-
bility. We rublish below the main portion OF
this letter, TO show the sentiments OF tile two
ArchbiskopH above named in tho mattcr that
30 agitates the Catholic world:
IS 10 MoSsEsuSEr1 THE BISHOP or OuLE,Ss
--.toi*t fgntur: We consider ourselves fulfill
ing. duty OF honor, and even Of Justice, in
declaring to you our sentiments on tile suniect
Of the letter addressed tu you by the Arch
bishop Of Baltimore, and which We Lave luz.
to speak in tie name Of the Prelates Of Amer
ICE, speakk. in fact, only in the uamo OF its
author, and, at most, Of those who NAV have
been ahlc to agree with him in the coiistruc-
ton OF the project Of definition he refers to.
:, Lis letter has appeared unknown to us:
and We think it 10 eAagseration to say that it
has fallen Ike bomtaAcll among u.s. to the
astonishment Of all. and the al1liction Of se;-
eral.
- 1t is very constant usage among us
1Amerlcansl, 10th in civil and religious life, to
determine. i'll Att nssembly-a 4nee,iny.' an
We call it-eyerything affecting tho general
interest There has been no assemble ut de-
liberation on the subject OF the letter thar has
been addressed 10 yo1l, and, consequently. It
has no official authority to represent The views
tfff1faI
:" We are very far from condemninc or CEN
su1ing the motives that have induced the
worthy and learned Archbishop to publish Lis
letter, but we think it proper ut the same time
to let you know that several tplHsieur$) OF us
do not enter at all into the measure that b.
LAS thought it his d1tS to take; and We do not
hesitate to consent that our sentiments should
pe rendered public. considering that there il
question Of strict duty toward the Catholic
Church, In Which We are established, by our
Lord Mmseif, judges Of the filth; and that
We arc well convinced that it is All assault
made on tue faith 70 agitate for the erection
Of theological opinion into dogma of CATH
olic faiihs
lyon have believed. Mcnscicncur. that II
was the clearly enumerated opinion OF the au-
thor Of the fostulatum, Of which this letter
treats, that i Eas no; olrort'lue to deiiue the
fontli;cal infallibiflty. According to tie rres-
ent declarations of the author himself. it
would seem that ycu arc mistaken. Bat, we
think We can assure you, you are not tie o:,,v
one that has been mistaken on 1Iis subject.
Those who have the homer to enjoy tic COM
pans Of the auiable Archbishop ass mistaken
about the matter us we'll rs your Lotdship-
ana AZ they have not well and clearly perceived
the change that las taken place tilt eincc the
Honorable ltrelate has found himselt a mem.
ber Of two Populations Of the Council.
Several OF LII could, at need, declare hat-
ing heard him. more than once. e1hort aul i'll
duee \tn9dger} his colleagues in ths Epi.c,,-
pste.to oppose definition surremely 'i,op-
porsuue. We think, even, that the mere read
ing OF tue Postulatum puts sufficiently in eyi-
tence ne real desires of the author. Wc have
not tie least doubt, or suspicion, but that the
change OF opinion that has happeneJ since
has been accomplished under the influence Of
solid 1ntrl,ric reasons- But these reasous are
is easy to explain the unfortunate mistakes
that have occurred Oh TIC subject. It seems
to Es, however, that the blame, II any. nurht
not to weigh entirely and exclusively On your
Lcrdsbip.
I'VE do not vieh to enter On a discussion a,
the different points raised hy the letter. We
nust eay to you. however, that it was not the
intention OF the fathers OF tho BALTIMORE
rlenaEy Council Of 1866 to define Tue pont,f-
cial inialhbility; IL, doubtless, YOU yours.lf
might testify that it was not anv more that of
sts 1ns tssnoRn sneRR assembled !ss oe> in 1867 to
THE American Presates have reason alto
eesher. special for hesitating IN regard
70 this question Of Tapai ipfalhbiIity'
Eor* on one hand, neither Catho-
lies nor Pedestrians, in our country
viii admit that Poges have the light Of depos,
their cath Of fidelity; and q transferring. at al
their vii, Kingdom from one Prince to an
other. Our Irish. who are the mass. a. tha
support, Of the Catholic Church in tie United
States, will have difficulty IN agreeing TIA.
Pope Adrian ~, who WAS an Englishman, was
OF England. On the otAer hand. bulls ~
Popes, on this subject, are 80 clear, and 20
positive, that defenders Of papal infailih;litr
in general think themselves obliged to aIlmiff
the temporal so.ereignty Of the Pope over the
1T IS remarkable that the mode,n ,rt,o-,
who tall 80 loudly OF the privilege Of Pontiti.
cal in1aiibl1ty, keep. At present, so profound
silence in regard to that other privilege, ,hat
their predecessors esteemed as important, and
as well proved as the former. Til now il has
been permitted us to gay that the Church Cath
and that it is not responsible for what the
ropes have done, OF may do. But, If these
Pontidcal decisions were to become articles
Of faith, the Archbishop Of Baltimore would
ind mmsef much embarrassed. AZ well
eyen recently, in regard to the {reedon
ct worship: The explanations your Lorl.hip
Thought obliged to give have aveste4l md an
peAseI Little storm which threatened the
Church. our mem1ry be not at fault, for
our country, We thiEk Mgr. Of Baltimore has
counted himself happy to subscribe to your
explanations, by adopting them
The Archbishop OF Baltimore asys. in his
letter. that he has nevcr donbtedof the general
belief Of the Church relative to the infa1ibilitv
u tue sEApE Jesus Ia1at- In tlls C1B0, would
it not be better to ssk nothing more, and to
leave things where they arc, and have always
been? Why demand new definitions. which
do violence to the Coincidence of several Of his
colleagues in the Episcopatas For several OF
us believe that ecclesiastical history tho his
tory Of the Popes; the history OF the Conn-
clle, and the tradition OF the Chu1ch are not
in harmony with the new dogma; and it is for
this that We believe that it Is very inorportn0e
to wiAh to define, as Of faith, IN opinion that
appears to us novelty d the faith. that
seems to US without solid foundation in
scripture and tradition; while it appears to
us coutradicted By irretrasi5le monuments.