The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1872-09-01

!1eossssarsss. in which Apoatollc Ses. h.
True Chaneh abides-VsSom ~ apossot;.;:.
t ccs ;, $50 sens.at Ecelsssam. LsSSss
-, Tertullian, do praesc,ipt ADJ, Aa.,.,
50, says, "TraveFse the Apostolic cburchsS..
where arc the chairs Of the Apostle =
Wnscn are seated the Bishops who 6.naa
eHeceeded them, whore to-day are stil, 80
sbeir authentic epistles, of which each ose
ass Is It. were. the sound of tue voice s sas
ne tacs Of tho anthor. Are you ness
TO Macedonia, you have Phtlippi aud TN s
saloasos. II you 60 towards Asia you bsS.
bbp1es n II you are near Italy you have
Augustine thought. that the best vav :.
settle many Questions disputed ip the nSus Nv
churcheas wOnld be to refer them to ~
aicision VI one Of the Apostolic churches.
sCl., Q No. 43, sec. 9. "APostolicsrum Ec,,
clesiarum causam saam reservare."
:. Hence II to say, San Apostolic See ho.
spoken, the case is settled means that ~. .,Us
one Of them il infallible, it must mean th.t
all OF them are infallible = and Rome n"
more e, than Ephesus or any oslthe rest A.
;. The pAsssse, quoted has references to
had besa con demned by local synoS u
Africa held at Milevs, and BY another hsiS
At Carthage The Pelagians would, not
abide by tho dieision.' Both iparties An.
.pealed TO the neasest Apostolic See, and
Innocent, Bishop Of, Rome became the rofa-
rec: He decided essinss the Pslaeisns
And Angnetinc had right toasa athe
parties had given . decision. BIT What bat
must De thought OF the konesty Of tLose.
who take the words In which Auaustirs
announces that simple statement, and dn.
ciares thai he meant thereby to assert, that
the Bishop Of Rome is infallibte in deciding
al. Questions of faith or moraisf
S. The absurdity as we'll as dishonesty
readers of Church History. There was
not single party connected with this casa
who did not reject the idea that a Roman
Bishops dicision is infallible. Did Che
Pela9lans receive it as infailiblef By no
means; Innocent died soon AFTER, and thew
at once appealed to Zozimus his successor.
Did Zozimus declare a Roman Bishops de.
the contrary, he decided the Pelagians or
thodox and rebuked the African Bishops
for having done them injustice. Did even
Augustine and his fellow Bishops accept
as infailible the decision of a Roman
Bishop, which was contrary to their convic-
tons of justice Not at all /; they protest.
ed against the decision of Zozimus and held
general Council at Carthage, and reafirm.
ed their own decision against the Pela-
gians; and then the 90 called infallible
Lozimns felt at length constrained to re-
verse his former, so-called infallible de-
eisieH.- In his Epistoaa tractoria, he infal.-
libly endorses the decision of the Council
Of Carthage which was contrary to his own
previous infallible judgment. See au-
thorities in the case cited in full. by Giese-
Ter, l., Pa 2, Div. l., Sec. IS. Or; Annalss
Eccies. .Guc. Baroaso, vol. S. An 4l7 where
the infallible deliverances Of Z"zimus, pro
and con, are given at length, by upques
donable Romish authority. '''
3. The fact is, that none of the parties
with the case accepted Roman
Bishops decision as infallible or even as
binding when it opposed their own con-
'cieutious convictions, but appealed from
t OF rejected it, without hesitation. There
could scarcely be q stronger proof, that in
hose times the idea of papal infallibility
vas altogether unknown.
We must then repeat the question-what
8 to be thought of the honesty of men
Who solemnIy assert that it was the pur-
bose of Augustine on that occasion, to de-
;lare that the Bishop of Rome 10 iDfalliblef
Their famous maxim 10 a palpabte fraud!
We consider it unnecessary to discuss the
currility with which our neiglibor decor
ties his article which we publish to-day.
We rather prefer that every one shoold
peak in his own vernacular. ...
We now renew tho demand for the "fa-
ilities for verifying the correctness of the
we haye specified, before pro-
eeding to others. We thus meet their
ardent desire for investigation"