The Fremont weekly journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio) 1867-1877, 1870-08-19

NdGuOllC OAuANh
Rev. Carol then says:
Otis a cable calumny toassert that there was
not freedom of debate, when it is notorious
fact that the Pope refused to shorten the pro-
ceedings, in order that all the opposition might
be heard"
Really Archbishop Purcell will
have to go into that catechism class.
Just hear him:
G.In the start twenty-seven others joined with
me in signing that protest against a threatened
pressure without due consideration. We told
the Holy Father that if that plan was carried
out the obligation of Poutifical secrecy would
thereby be removed, and placing his hand on
his mouth) there would be no gag there, and
all the proceedings should come out"
The Infallible yielded.
We quote again
HI hesitate to insult your extensive Catholic
learning, by informing you that calibacy is
matter of discipline only, and can be abrogated
when the church sees fit DogntGs cannot
change, discipline can and does"
Admitting celibacy to be "a mat
ter of discipline" and not doctrine,
permit US, most sapient, to enquire,
if they are not both established by
the same iHtaHibls authority? and if
the one can be changed why not the
other? You recognize the infallibi
lity of all preceding Popes, yet i'm
pute fallibility by admitting that a
rule established By one may be a6ro-
gated By another. 1t would be well
for you to read occasionally, the
following from the dogma itself:
"Tbat the pastors and the faithful, both in
dividuaIly and taken together whatever may
be their rite and their dignity, are subjected
to him by the duty of hiearchial subordination
and of the true obedience; not only in those
things which concern the faith and the morals,
but also In those which belong to the discipline
and the government of the church scattered
throughout the whole universe
The assertion that what we said
in regard to the doctrine of purgato-
ry, indulgences, DC" is "diabolically
false" is a frightful argument, but
unfortunately not sustained by his
tory, termed by you "filthy trash
that enemies and infdels have writ
ten against the church." "Maria
Monk" we have never read nor seen,
not so with the reverend gentleman,
who appears to have studied it until
he has become satisfied Of its Gin
ebriating" qualities. "Infdels'' we
presume, are those who do not ab-
sorb the doctrine of the church.
But we quote again
HNow for a rather dissgreeable task You
say that you did not deny that God could give
| infallibilfity to man. You did deny It, and
here is your condemnation:
n'This arrogation of an attribute which, in
the nature of things, cannot belong to q muta-
bis condition, but is only an attribute of DiUis-
ity, &C.
eyes, you did deny it, and the context
proves that such was your intention"
In the sentence quoted there were
no italics to intensity the meaning,
! The reverend has introduced them,
But to show the meaning intended
let us change the italics, thus:
"This arrogation of an attribute which, in
the nature Of things, cannot belong to a mu-
table condition, but is only an attribute Of
Divinity" &c.
The argument is this-"in the
nature of things" man is mortal, he
is erring, he is changeable; ifit were
not so he would need no Redeemer
The Pope is man, he is therefore
mortal, erring, changeable, and can
not be infallible. There is no de-
nial here, in saying that Infallibility
"cannot belong to a mutable condi
ton" that God cannot confer it. We
assert again for the benefit of the
reverend gentleman, that infallibili
ty ais only an attribtSe of divinity
and not an attribute Of "mutable'
or mortal condition" AS the gen
tleman disputes this position, o.
course he must mean that it is ar
attribute of mortal man, and if so
why the Pope more than any other
Perhaps, if we put it shape simple
enough for that "catechism class,
he may catch the idea, though W,
have our doubts; thus; "This AFRO
CATION of an attribute which canno
naturally Tin the nature of things
belong to a mutable condition, &c
Others will get the idea ifhe doe
not. We would not limit the powe
ofJehovah, nor have we done so in thr
extract which the reverend gentle
man has sought to wrest to such
purpose. That he can confer it W,
do not doubt, that he has conferred
it is the point in question. Let tn
reverend gentleman bring forth hi
proofs. And please, while upon thu
subject, inform us if Peter was en-
dowed with iataHibdity, when he de
MED his master? From his subse
quent conduct we should judge HI
: did not think so.
Insisting, as you do, on the infal
libility Of the Apostles, you nigh
also intimate your opinion of tn
infallibility of Judas, when he be
trayed his master. In Mathew y
5 the Apostles were duly commission
.. ed, Judas among the rest, and th'
: same power and commission confer
> red on all, yet the Savior, John VI
: 20 says: ''Haye l not chosen yol
} t,celce and one Of you is derag
: In Luke X, 1850 we have Johl
, reporting to the Savior that the,
had met one casting out devils il
Thy name, and we rebuked him.
In return he learned a memorable
, lesson, yet John, who must hav,