The New York herald., 1870-05-22


In my former letters l communicated to you the
fact Of o dispute having arisen between the Arch
bishop OF Baltimore and Bishop Dupanloup. The
letter OF the FORMER has called forth whitening and
mastery review OF the elbow hot blow coldn tactics
OF DR.. Spading since he came TO Rome. The
Bishop OF Orleans shows that before he was ap-
pointed member OF two conciliatory deputations
ne was dead against the dogma OF infallibity.
Since his election to the deputations change has
come over the illustrous Archblshop-chargeable to
the Holy Spirit OF course-but the most important
TACT for the American reader Is the Joint letter OF the
Archbishops of ST. Louis and Cincinnati behalf Of
several OF the American bishops. They not only
endorse Bishop Dupanloup but they charge, In the
softest phrases imaginable, Archbishop Spalding
with conduct not exactly what people would expect
from man OF his status in the church. That there
may be no mistake in the matter extract from the
letter. which is printed in French the following sen.
tence but enclose translation OF the entire letter.
because Is one Of the boldest documents that has
ever been seen In Rome from the per OF eccles.-
astc:-'Pluseurs d'entre nous pourv0lent au
besoin declarer paroir entendu plus dune fois
exhorter et engager ses colleagues dams Pepscopat,
s0pposer une detention souverainement mop
perfume, nous crogeres meme que La lecture scule
du Postutatum met sufisamment en- ersde7ace les
trdfs desfrS dc pGutelu." The italics are the Arch
bishop's.
Had the prospect OF q red hat and pair OF stock.
ines to match anything TO do with the Archbishops
change or baseS They may have and they may not.
am inclined to think that Archbishop Manning
drew the wool over his eyes. The school mate of the
English Premier couldn't humbug the old gentlemen,
who have seen wonders out West; they are fond of
converts when they say their prayers and give
aims to the poor, but they can't stomach them when
fhnV ROma ike On,
the eve Of local election, asking for signatures in
favor OF q dogma which, as well expressed by the
archbishops, is only an opinion teolo0iQue. Here's
the letter In ertenso:-
; The Letter.
LETTER FROM ARCHBIsHOPs KENRICK AND PURCELL
\. IN BEHALF OF SEVERAL AMERICAN BISHOPS IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF BALTIMORE
AND IN Defence OF THE BISHOP OF ORLEANs:-
To the Right Rev. ANTHONY FELIX Il. DUPANLOUP,
Bishop OF Orleans, France.
MoNsEIGNEUR-We believe we perform a duty OF
honor, and we Will say justice, In manifesting TO
you our sentiments in relation TO the letter which
M0nselgneur the Archbishop of Baltimore has
addressed to you, and which we have read I'm the
public journals. This letter. which seems TO speak
sents the voice OF its author, and at the most the
names OF those whp have been able to concur with
him in the compilation OF a project Of definition
which Is being discussed; 1t has appeared with
out our knowledge ana we believe we do not exag-
gerate in saying that 1t appeared among-tombee-
like bOmbshell, to the astonishment or all and
the affiction of several 1t Is custom among u.s.
civil as religious to determine all that relates the
public interest in assembly-in meeting, as we call
IL. There has been no assembly or deliDeration on
the subject OF the letter which has been addressed
to yOu and consequently 1t has no 0ilcal authority
to represent the views and convictions Of the Amerl
can preIates. We are far from wishing to condemn
or censure the motives which have Influenced the
learned Archbishop to publish his letter; but be-
lieve at the same time, that 1t Is pJOpOS TO inform
you that several among us do not enter at all in
the proceeding which he has believed 1t to be his
duty 10 take and we do hesitate TO consent that
sentiments be made public that II Il
matter Of duty towards the Catholic Church, in
which we are established by our LORD himself the
judges Of the fath and that we satisfied that it
Is an attack against the liberty OF souls to act so
violently In order to establish theological opinion
as dogma OF Catholic lalth
You have believed, MOnsegneur, that that was the
expressed and settled opiniOn-bie7 p1,OaOncee-Of
the author OF the P0stutdturn, OF which 1t Is the
question In this letter that 1t was not 0pportune TO
define The pontilcal infallibilty. From the present
declarations OF the author himself it would appear
that you yourself were deceived but we believe we
are able TO assure you that YOU not the only
VINO has been deceived on this subject. Those VINO
have the honor TO enjoy the company Of the amiabe
Archbishop failed themselves as much VOtre
Grandeur, and they did not perceive any change in
his opinion TO have taken place until the venerable
prelate found himself a member or two c0nclliary
deputatons Several among us would be able to de-
clare II needed, to have heard him more than once
exhort and induce his colleagues In the epscopacv
to oppose themselves TO definition absolutely in
opportune. We believe even, that the leading alone
OF the Postutatura places sufficiently IN Evidence the
true desires OF the author.
We have not the least doubt suspicion that un
looked for change OF opinion may not be accom-
pshed under the influence OF solid intrinsic rea-
you, and so 1t is easy to explain The amentable mis-
takes which have taken place on this subject. 1t
appears 20 us, however, that the blame, II there is
any, ought not to rest entirely and exclusively upon
VoTe Grandeur.
We don't wish to enter in the discussion of the DIFF
ferent points raised by the letter. We must never
theless inform you that not the intention Of
the Fathers OF the Plenary Council held at Baltimore
In 1866 to define the pontca infallibity without
doubt yourself would be able to affirm that 1t was
not, no more than the bishops assembled in 1867 to
make similar definition Interiors owe always a
respect and Obedience without limits 70 their superior
especially TO their superior OF Divine authority-drO
dpf'and they love to renew the assurance OF their
sentiments which must always be understood In
the sense Of the holy canons. But ali the world
knows that the dogmas are only drawn up In ex-
press and precise terms ana formally announced.
We do not hazard any opinion upon the true French
translation OF the word debOut to know II dtt Is
farther from the sense than Seran destrable,
with what the author calls all sorts Of alterations 81
Jfe7t pOSstt.
But we believe that we ought to observe that the
theory which asks moral unanrnity for the delni-
ton OF dogma Is not quite so new as The author OF
the letter seems to believe It, VIII 1t appear to
those who have read the history of the Council Of
Trent. Moreover, Melchi0r Camos, grand cham
pion Of the pOntifcal infablty, asks himself II the
Pope must decide after the majority of the Council
or it is permissible to follow the minority, and
upon that ito our surprise we are obliged to
agree in that he does not hesitate to make
the following. assertions, which we leave in the
language OF the author. 30 that we Will incur no
risks IN making false translation
Nego, cum de 1de agtur, sequ plurimorum
judicium opartere. Nee hic, ut In humans vel eec
torubus vel judicils, ex numero sunrag0rum sem
tentiam metimur, scimus frequenter usu venise, ut
major pars wheat meliorem, sclmus more ca semper
esse optima qua placent pluribus, sclmus in velus
qu@ ad doctrinam pertinent, sapientum sensum esse
pr8f0rendum, ct sapients
Translation:-I deny when 1t is question of faith
that he Is bound to follow the majority In that
we DO not value the decree according to the number
OF votes, as 1t happens in human judgments
and elections. We are aware that 1t usually hap
pens that the majority trumphs the better party;
we know that not always the best things are those
which please the majority; we know that with
gard to doctrine we must prefer the sense OF wise
men, and wise men are very few.
1t Is necessary to see the entire article-De Auct.
Concfl., Lib. W, cap. W, quas 2.
Melchier Genus says there several things which
are at least strange. But he had assisted at the
Council OF Trent and 1t Is permissible to us to sup
pose that at least before the nat definitions he had
mad occasion to verify what at least in part he saws
We willingly acknowledge that among the preiates
OF the new Church OF the United States the majority
admit the Pontifcal infallIbility; but they admit Il
as an opinion. That opinion is now more probably
extrnslc-that is to say. by the exterior authori-
ties; but that extrlnsic probability is apt
to change, because the faith alone is
snvoriahle In France the contrary ODlnjOn was