The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-04-27


is no successor Of the apostles; he may, |
through the powers conceded to him from
Rome, be very mighty so long as his principal |
allows him to rule, just in the same way as q |
Jesuit or mendicant friar to whom the Pope
has granted abundance Of privileges also pos
sesses great power; and 1 well know that such
an extension Of their powers has been held
out in prospect to the bishops in Rome; that
they have been told, "Ihe more irresistible
the Pope the stronger shall ye be, for the rays
of the abundance Of his power shall fall also
on YOU" The bishops of the minority have
penetrated the deusion of these promises
they understood clearly, as the Analytical
Synopsis" shows, thar as soon as the uni
versal episcopacy Of the Pope should be
established they might indeed continue to be
dignitaries of the Church, but no longer
true bishops. You yourself, venerable sir,
took part in tho deputatiou which made such
urgent counter representations to the Pope
on the 18th Of July, MISREPRESENTATION
which Bishop Won Ketteler (Mayence) sought
to emphasize by prostraton! We know that
these representations were fruitless. The
sole consolation given to the bishops mourn
ing the loss of their ecclesiastical dignity
was confined TO the declaration in the decree
that the Episcopal power is an ordinary
one-(j. e. g DOt6StdS 0rdiRdTjd SUbdelegeta, as
the Romish canonists are accustomed to ex-
press it,, and that the Pope considers it to be
his duty to support them, this being vouched
by a mutilated saying of Gregory the Great,
by passage which, if it, with others, had
been quoted in its entirety, would indeed
have proved to the world that this Pope of
the seventh century put away from himself
with the deepest horror such universal Epis-
copacy as has now been established, consider
ing it g blasphemous usurpation.
Nor has there been any lack of prayers,
representations, and warnings before aud
A.. L.,
sir, took part in the same by your signature.
The bishops of the minority have declared in
an address to the Pope, on the 18th of Janu-
ary, signed by yourself, that ''the declarations
and acts Of the Fathers of the Church, the
true documents of history the Catholic educa-
tiopal system itself, presented the most
serious difficulties in opposition to the procla-
nation of the doctrine of infallibility." They
were, as they themselves said, afraid even to
discuss these difficulties, and prayed the Pope
TO relieve them from the necessity Of such
discussion C., to relinquish his infallibility.
But when the Pope insisted that the Council
should occupy itself Herewith, the German
bishops demanded on the 11th of March ex-
haustive conferences on the question of in
fallibility, to be conducted by deputations
chosen from both sides. These were not
granted and they had to content themselves
| with speeches in the Aula, where any regular
discussion was an impossibility.
As to the indispensability and urgent need
of such conferences would only quote hero
one instance considerable number of
Italian bishops demanded in a since-printed
address that Papal infallibility should be
raised to dogma of faith, because two men,
both Italians and both the pride of their
ration-Thomas Aquinas and Alphousus
Liguori, those shining lights of the Church
! has thus taught. Now, it was well known
and proved by me, as well as by Gratry, that
Thomas had been deceived by long series of
| invented testimonies, as, indeed, he bases his
teaching in this instance almost exclusively
upon such faIsifcations and never upon
genuine passages of the Fathers or Councils.
Ana 80 % Li5uorI, % sipsie glanoo his
writings is sufficient to con vince
any practised theologian that his deal
ings with felsifed passages are still worse
than those of Thomas. My exposure of the
fraud to which the latter had succumbed had
created great sensation in Rome. The author
of pamphlet published there, and directed
against myself, says that great cry had been
raised on the subject round about him. 1t
ought, therefore, to have been indispensably
necessary to examine closely into the matter.
1t is true that such an examination, carefully
and thoroughly begun, would have led very
far it would have resulted in the proof that
the theory of Papal infallibility had been in
troduced into the Church solely by series of
calculated inventions aud falsifcations, a nd
had then been spread and maintained by
force, by the suppression of other teaching
and by the many means and articles which
are at the disposal of the ruling power.
All exertioEs, representations, and petit
tions, then, were fruitless nothing was con-
ceded, and yet the example of the so-often
quoted Council of Florence was before theil
eyes, when the assertion Of the Greeks, that
falsiied passages of the Fathers were laid be.
fore them, led to examinations and discus
sions lasting many months and carried
on with the greatest care. 1t is
assuredly known to your EXcellency that the
most careful and ripe consideration of tradi
tion has invariably been required of any true
Gcumepical Council about to issue dogmatiC
resolutions How great the contrast in thi.
respect between Trent aud that which oc
of Archbishop Cardoni, which was accepted
at once by the preparatory committee ant
which was to be considered by the assembled
bishops as proof, could not have supported
examination for one single hour.
In the whole history of the Church I only
know of one General Council in which, as il
this last, those IN power prevented any
thorough discussion of the tradition, and thit
was the Second of Ephesus, in the year 4+9
these, in the so-called Synod of Thieves
(Raubersynode), this was done by force ant
by tumultuous tyranny. In the Vatican
Council the order of proceeding imposed Oh
the assembly, the Papal Committee aud the
will of the majority, suffered no regular aad
critical examination to be made. Such an
examination would assuredly have brought tc
light many awkward and unpleasant matters
huf IL uOuld haVa Drasarvad the Dhurob froyr