The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1872-11-10

arc forgeries pothfng is easier than to prove
frauds, our contemporary repiies--"if they
It.; zoo are ssilIing to rest our case upon the
Issue.
They say now, that Augustine meant by
the phrase he used in speaking of Innoeent's
| decision, that "the bishop or pope OF Rome
| is infallible in deciding all questions of
| faith or morals" IL this be true, Angus
tine must have held that from the jadg-
mcnt of that bishop there can be no appeal.
We have already seen that neither CelesT
tins, Zosimus, nor the Carthagian Synod of
| which Augustine was q member thought
So But the writings of Augustine are
perfectly clear on that point. He saws:
Ds ss fo1t om D0Ds b B. another
more learned than he and what they have
done annie may be reprehended by provin-
cial councils and these councils may be
corrected by general councils; and subse-
quent general councils may rectify the I'M
ceded them.
Augustine advises the Donatists, il dis
satisfied with the decision of Melchiades,
bishop or pope of Rome, to appeal to a gene
nal Council, where not only the case, but
the judges may be tried, and the sentence
teaches that the pope's decision ought to
be appealed from if unsatisfactory, and
should be examined and reversed if found
to be wrong. We give his words, "Ecce
putemus illos episcopos, qui Romae judi
carunt non bonos JUDGES fuisse restabat
adhuc plenarium Ecclesiae universae con-
cillium, ubi ethan cum ipsis judicibus causa
posset agitari, ut 81 male judicasse convict
| essent, eorum sententia solverentur," CT.
2, Epist 43, 5. 10.
And these Donatists did appeal to a
Council held at Aries, and as it occurred in
the previous decision, they appealed from
the decision of the Council to that of the
Emperor, suh0 entertained the appeal and
pronounced his own decisioD, Ep. 43, s. 4.
Yet the Emperor never claimed intalli-
bility.
These citations clearly show that no one
can use the name of Augustine in defence
of papal infallibility without forgery, for it
is aMxing his signature to q doctrine he
never held. The fraud is manifest.
2. AS to Tertullian, they refuse to ad-
NIT the forgery. 1t is not needful, we will
They say Tertullian testifies to their doc
trine that the bishop of Rome is the only
infallible judge of all questions of faith or
morals they say in proof of it, that, He
speaks Of Rome as the Church ",chence au-
tbority emGnates."
But if by this, Tertullian meant to testi-
fy to their dogma. he must have meant
that the Church of Rome, is the exclusive
source of authority for the whole world.
Now those who make the above state
ment know perfectly we'll that he meant
was not claiming exclusive authority or
universal authority for that Church and
they know that if they had quoted the
whole passage all this would be evident.
They therefore suppress the first part of
the passage. The whole passage is as fol-
lows:
Tertullian, de praescript ADJ. haeret, c. 80,
Traverse the Apostolic churches where are
the chairs of the Apostles in which are seated
the Bishops who have succeeded them, where
to-day are still read their anthe tic epistles, of
which each one has % it were the sound of the
voice and the face of the author. Are you
near Achaia, you have Corinth. Arc you near
to Macedonia, you have Phillippi and Thessaloni
If you are near Italy you have Rome, whence
all an thority is afforded u.s."
The whole passage shows that he taught
that there were various centres of Christian
intelligence for various countries, of which
Rome was one. Suppress all but the last
to prove that Rome was the exclusive
source of Christian intelligence and au-
tliority for the whole world, according to
Tertullian.
Some would say this use of Tertullian ia |
simply falsehood ; Others would certainly |
denominate it forgery; and no honest man
will fail to denounce it as fraud.
Neither of these terms fully describes |
the thing, but which describes it best, is |
merely question of tase.
Neither can they more safely rely on
their grand argument for infallibility, that,
"the title Pope" has long since become
peculiar to the Bishop of Rome" That
same title "Pope," is the common title to-
day of the clergy of the Greek Church, and
is borne by the humblest of it's priests none |
of whom are infallible.
These assertions show the methods of the |
Romish Church to influence public opinion.
The bearing of the argument is political.
okoa all w nv
political tools in the hand of those who
manipulate the dogma. For what are your
private convictions against infallibility Z
1t seemed to promise success. But it was
overdone. Bismarck has demonstrated its
weakness, and sounded the key note of its
overthrow.
Meantime, what is to be thought of the
faith of those who are fed on such argu-
ments; and of the morals of those who use
them; and of the Christianity of that
Church, which sanctions and requires
them7