The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1872-10-27

fsa1iixM Gistatsn ~ to whether an isdi-
yilaal n guilty Of holding thNy doctrine ori
not, especially II the latter deny Il. ,asst
s2d. The fact that local councils decree
70 be heretical, and ask the
Pope to approve their DEGREES, is not an /
assumption or Infallibity on their part, NOR |
. denial Of his possession Of it. Any pri-
vate bishop, priest or layman might 90 the
same thing. 1t 10 merely q solemn express
zion Of opinion on the part of the council |
coupled with the admission that unless ap- |
proved by the Pope it is worthless. DO
cause the Pope is infailible it does not fol- |
low that others may not draw up DEGREES |
for his approval, provided they be willing
to abandon them if rejected by him.
These two principles, rightly understood,
take away all the mystery from those facts
and full of meaning. Thus it is NO
longer strange that the Synod Of Carthage
should take action on given question be-
fore tho Pope did, considering that they
asked his approval thereof, and TINS also
it is not at all singular that Pope zoet@nsa
was deceived "a to the guilt Of Celessxes IN
holding to the Pelagian heresy. Thus too,
there was no appeal from one Pope to an
other, or to himself, on . question involv-
ing infallibility but simply on point Of
administration. r..
The Presbyserian thinks that ST. Angus
tine could not have supposed InfaliibHity
in the Pope besauss Zosimus entertained
an appeal from Innocent, both being Popes.
We assert positively that there was no
appeal on any definition of doctrine but
simply on the private question of the per-
sonal guilt Of Cslestius. Not solitary
word is given by the Presbyterian to show
that the doctrine enunciated by Innocent
was called in question. Indeed there was
no appeal whatever from Innocent to
Zosimus, because the so-called appeal
was made to Innocent himself, and
merely came before Zojmus from the
fact that it arrived after the death Of limo
cent. It was simply an application for q
rehearing, not an appeal, and rehearine
on the personal question Of guilt and pun
ishment not on the question of doctrine
selemnly defined and published to the
world by the Pope. The claim of st. In.
nocent to Infallibility in publishing thai
definition was too solemn to be ignored By
/ himself or his successor, or to be trifled will
by an appellant. He says: 90" know
ing what Ia due to the Apostolic See, since
all of US placed in this position have de-
sired to follow the Apostle himself, from
suhom tho Episcopaey itself and all tho as
shosity of its title has proceeded.
St. Augustine says positively that Zosi
! mus never, by word or deed, approved tn
. infamous doctrines of Pelngius and Celes
. thus, O fact which we have before distinctl,
:. brought to the attention Of the Presby
terrain: K" Nusqudm prorsus hoe DIRT, nus
8 guam ousnjno conscripsit." "Never" (say
: st Augustine) Z" did he say this, never b
any means write It." For it appears tbs
9 even at that day certain ill-informed per
8 sons had fallen into the same mistake as on
, neighbor, and judged from the leniency c
), Zosimus to Celestius that he favored hi
e doctrines. St.Augustine meets them indie
u nantly with the above denial.
d Moreover the letter Of Zosimus, SO muc
9 Wanted as containing q revisal of limo
cents definition, not even refers to that dc
: fnition OF to the doctrine which it formr
|. lated, nor makes any formula of its Owl
9 nor indeed adopts any doctrine at all.
o simply absolves Celestius from any gui
= or heresy because Of his good disposition
IS his Willingness to be corrected if wroni
q This is clear from tn very passage Of whic
our neighbor quotes only three words,
70 ingessit eranini," and which reads thus
y Celestius, priest, has pat himself befol
70 as for examination, desiring that whatev
"a he had taught other wise than might apps
y to the Apostolic See fitting, should be col
demned." Thus it was his own person
case that was to be examined and the que
D. ton of his guilt to be determined, he d
ut claripg in advance his willingness to reje
,g any heretical or erroneous doctrine. TIL
DO he did not assert his doctrine in oppositi.
40 to Innocent is perfectly evident from b
Of declaration when questioned by Zosimu
nf edo Won condemn all that thew have mn