New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-05-08
Written for the New Orleans Republican,
THE PROTECT AGAISST INFALLI
BILITX.

,. The protest of archbishops, assembled
:, Rome, against the raising of the questio
70 at the Vatican Council, con the definition
the infallibility of the sovereign ponti
as DOGMA" is very impol
tant document, inasmuch as it signife
that many Roman Catholics of til
present day are opposed to the ultra
montana doctrine or extreme views of tn
Pope's rights and supremacy. The lnfaI
bility of the church Of Rome has been on
of the great controversies in the past be-
tween Protestants and Papists. By this in
falibility it is understood the church
of which the Pope of Rome
the head, can not at any tim
cease to be orthodox in her doctrine, O
fall into any pernicious errors; but that sh
Ii constituted by Divine authority tn
judge OF all controversies of religion, an,
that all Christians are obliged to acquiesc
in her decisions. This is the chain which il
to keep its members fast bound to its com
muniOn; the charm which is to retain then
within its magic circle; the opia.e which
lays asleep all their doubts and difficulties
, 1t is intended. likewise, to be tn,
magnet which attracts the desul-
tory and unstable in other persua
sions within the sphere of Popery; the
foundation of its whole superstruc.
ture; the cement OF all its parts, and its
fence and fortress against all iproads and
attacks. Under the idea of this infalli-
bility the church Of Rome claims 10 deter
mine what books are and what books are
not canonical, and to oblge ali Christians
to receive or reject them accordingly; to
communicate authority to the scripture-or
in other words. that the Scripture, as to Us,
receives its authority from her; to assign
and fix the sense of Scripture, which all
Christians are to submissively receive; to
decree as necessary to salvation whatever
she Judges SO, although not con-
tanned in Scripture. and to decide
all controversies respecting matters of faith.
| These are claims to which the Church of
Rome pretends, but which have not been
enforced throughout the Catholic world,
from the fact that many Catholics have had
the independence and common sense to
dissent therefrom. The protest of the pre-
lates is written in language most loyal and
humble to the power it is addressed to, and
is signed mostly by Archbishops from this
country. We reproduce it for the benefit of
American readers:
MosT Holy FArHER-Humbly PROSTATE
at the feet OF your Holiness, we most earn
estly supplicate that the question of the
definition of the infallibiIity of the
Sovereign POntiff as dogma of faith NAV
not be proposed to the Vatican Council.
Among other reasons of this supplication
we beg to adduce only three, which appear
to be sufficient
First-Because the discussion of the CUES.
ton will evidently show a want OF union,
and especially uuauimity among the
bishops.
second-Because on account of the cir |
cumstances IN which we are placed in c0un- |
tries where heresies not only exist with |
impuni y, but are dominant, this definition. |
Instead CT attracting, would ALLEVIATE those |
whom we seek by all Christian means 10 lead |
to the true fold of ChIst.
Third-Because we anticipate endless
questions viii arise which may interfere
with and prevent the work of our ministry
and cause the fruits ofths council to be lost
to those who are not members of the holy
Catholic Church. Having laid bare our
hearts and sincere intentions, we impiore
God to avert all evil from the
Church, and that He NAV ilIumiue and di
rect you with H is holy spirit.
J. B. Purcell, Archbishop of Cincinnati.
Peter Il. kenrick, Archbishop of st. Louis,
John McCiOskey, Archbishop of New York,
george Errington, Archbishop OF Trebi.
zond Tin parD.
Thomas Connolly. Archbishop of Halifax.
Richard Whelan, Bishop of Wheeling.
Augustine VerOt Bishop of Savannah.
apla nf |
John Sweeney, Bishop Of st. John, New
Brunswick.
Bernard McQuade. Bishop of Roch ester. |
Tobias Muller, Bishop OF Erie. ]
Francis Mcfarland, Bishop of Hartford.
James M. O'Gorman, Bishop of Omaha .
in part).
james Rogers, Bishop of Chatham,
Iansda. 6
Michael Domenee. Bishop of Pttsburg. t
Patrick Lynch, Bishop, of Charleston.
Thaddeus Arnat, Bishop Of Mystery. 8
David Moriarty, Bishop Of Kerry and t
Igadol.
William Clifford, Bishop Of Clifton, Eng
md.
Edward Fitzgerald, Bishop of Little Rock, l
John Leahy, Bishop of Dromore. c
John Hennessy, Bishop of Dubuque.
Patrick Feehan, Bishop of Nashville. v
John Hogan, Bishop Of st. Joseph, Mis-
)uri. =
John Henri, Bishop of Milwaukee. g
David Bacon, Bishop of Portland.
Joseph Meleher, Bishop of Green Bav.
lgnatius Mrak, Bishopof Sault Ste. Marie. Q
Among other reasons for humbly suppl -
sting that the question of infallibility shall o
ot be raised, the Archbishops assert that
rcumstances in which they are placed Sin Il
where heresies not only exist II
18th impunity, but are dominant, this "
'tnltion, instead of attracting, would !.
ienate those whom they seek by all -
Tristan means to lead to the true fold of !,
nrist." This is true enough, if we leave c.
1t that portion which evidently means to b
large that the majority of the people of b
is country are heretical because they take
Re responsibility of thinking for themselves. a.
here are thousands of good Catholics :,
ere who are not prepared to ally them -
Ives to the dogma of ipfalibility in man.
countries where ignorance and supersti- "
On prevail, this doctrine might be tolerated d
forced down the Threats of the people,
1t here where the masses are taught to W
INK for themselves, and feel that they are 81
sponsible beings, they are possessed of
70 pure religion to believe in the infalli- :"
ity dogma. They believe that this is an 81
tribute that belongs to God alone, and h
at when man assumes it he does il more P
furtherance of earthly aims than to &C.
mpllsh the grand ends that are to be at 7
ined by faith in God. To them it makes b'
ry little difference where the dogma of I'd
ajlibiity ia se4tnd-whethor in .1,o d..