The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1872-05-12

There Is no one infalIble bat God.
(Concfo p. r. kenrick, In Concilo TaticdnO,
Hsbenda ct non habfta.)
Will it be said that Archbishop Kenrick
has submitted to the dogmaf He may
have Withdrawn bis testimony, but the facts
remain. To use their own touching lam
guage, "he may and 1t convenient to
change his views now, but then we must re-
the fall Of great luminary from its celes-
tial heights. Tertullian, the great apollo
gist of Christianity, died reprobate. Even
Solomon, authos a. he was of inspired
writings, fell into idolstry." And let us
hope that, like Peter, who also first confessed
and then denied his master, that his faith
may not fail, and that he may be yet con-
verted and confirm his brethren.
We are assured, az an additional argu-
ment, that the Church has always taught
that the Pope is infallible. The contrary
is shown by the testimony of the fathers,
referred to above.
When their learned labors shall enable
them to discover that Baden is q country and
has government, we would suggest that our
neighbors should take look at this matter.
2. Again, they say, the Romish Church
has never erred. "If she has ever intro,
dae led s nSvelty; put your finger on it and
mish Church into Christian worship, but if
one is sufficient, we point to the novelty of
infallibility, introduced on the 18th of July,
1870. Since that time it is an article of
faith. Previous to that time it was not an
article of faith.
Previous to July 10, 1870, Papal infalli-
bility was not contained in the symbols of
faith, nor presented as an article of faith
in the catechisms, and is not found as such
in any document of worship. Innocent NJ.
twice approved Bossuet's Exposition of the
Faith, which teaches that on this subject
a work on Roman Catholic principles
etc., has circulated with approval of Wears
apostolic among Epglish-spea Roman
lists, which says, I" 1t is no matter of faith
to believe that the Pope is himself infalli-
bic, separated from the Church, even in
expoundiug the faith" By consequence,
Papal definitions or DEGREES, in whatever
form recommendation exclusively from
a General Council, or universal acceptance
of the Church-oblige none under pain of
heresy to an interior assent. Kinks But
1er's memoirs, 4, sol.
But the principle now presented to the
conscience of the Romish Church declares
that the Pope's definitions are of binding
authority of themselves, independent of
the consent of the Church. And those who
deny 1T are liable to excommunication, like
Dollinger and many others.
If to introduce novelties into the faith
proves a church to be no true church, our
neighbors would do we'll to consider this
point. Able Michaud declares that this
dogma 4" is not only not in the Gospel, but
contrary to it; not affirmed by the Fathers,
but denied by them not only not divine,
but erroneous, anti Catholic, unchris,ian
conceived by ambition, propagated by false
hood, crowned by ignorance and fanaticism.
To such an extent is tbis true, that who
ever would be a member of the present
Roman Church must believe in his soul as
doctrine revealed by God, believed by
all Christians, in all ages throughout the
Church. what a Roman bishop. before July
10, 1870, called the suicide Of the Church
what Dupanloup described as an unheard
Of Gbsurdity, what the wisest theologians
still, with Maasen consider a corruption both
Of history and recitation"
w.
In our last article we presented dilem-
ma, either, Bishop Elders explanation of
their idea Of Papal infallibiiity is cor
rect, or else the Roman clergy are de-
ceiving the community" They resent
the charge of deception, hence Bishop
Elder states the truth. If they complain
that our process was rude, we can only say
in our defence that it seems that nothing
short Of q. surgical operation can extract a
point is useful. For if it is true, according
to Bishop Elder, that the interest mani
tested BY the Pope on given question, is
"suthcient evidence of divine wisdom. then
Peter, in I'd Galat., was not infalIible in the
sense claimed for the Pope-as is admitted
now then the Pope could not have iuberit-
ed infallibility from Peter, for It is admitted
Peter did not have it; then the attemnt tn
prove the Pope's infallibility from Scripture
What follows if men were to accept this
untrue and wicked claimf This would fol-
low: admit that the Pope's "interest mani
rested" on any question, civil, social or
religious, "is sufficient evidence of the
divine WISDOM" and all other civil. social
and even religious authority are set aside
and disappear. If, as is claimed, the wishes |
of the Pope represent the wisdom Of God
and the voice of the Holy Ghost, every
earthly or human tie, or law, princinle or
obligation which does not correspond with
his wishes, conscience must pronounce dis
solved. The bubble, that "the Pope is
in euch sense only when he
speaks &c cathedral" can deceive no one.
For he, and he alone, can say ,cAen he speaks
&c cathelra, hence no one else can saw when
le does not, hence Bishop Elders expiana
ion is strictly logical, and the Pope's
wishes must he accounted no ouH6o;oue -;