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

We ars perfectly satisfied that such author,
as ice o,aO'0 fair and just in their quotations
because We know their character TO be above
deceit and their motives pure and .conscfen.
tlous For as, theA II y Only .necessarg to CLEAN
second hand learping" from such sources and
We are sure cfits gen nineness without tracing
up ssery qnotation 10 its source; 9 ..l's'
Now, the Presbyterian boldly denies on it's o,cu
authority, tho ee,s,ectsess Of quotations which
have been .publssAed. and rspublished ia ali
.eerks on this subject for the last thousand OF
81 teen hundred yssfs.@ a i "a. =.
If perfectly equivalent words are used, there
10 not delusion created. There is no difference
IN saying the Apostolic See has answered" or
"Rome has spoken"
Here is a confession which rudely dispels
the aroma Of ancient learning with which
our co -temporary has delighted to perfume
itself. The guardian of these inaccessible
testimonies admits that he never had them
in his possession. The generous donor of
facilities for verifying their correctness"
humbly tells US that be knows nothing of
those quotations, except from the state
pents of others.
Our contemporary is forced to admit, that
bis ostentatious boast of Familiarity with
the anciente, this parading before the pub
lie of string of names of early writers
was after all, only sham. The pompous
menory"-"our authorities Citing those
ancient volumes"-"ardent desire of in
vestigation"-"happy to put facilities at
our neighbours disposal"-ali this talk, was
merely a sham, to deceive the pnwary, and
create q grand idea of the vastness of our
cotemporary's learning. Such was our
nelghbor's vanity, the ambition to strut in
lion's skin, garment which suits neither
its nature nor it's education. Nothing is
more becoming and cafe than ones own
native costume.
We cannot say that our neighbor lays the
lions shin aside very gracefully. But he
clearly admits that il don't belong to him.
when after all this ostentatious parade of
ancient authorities, he comes to confess,
that he knows so little of the writings
which his text books specify, as, that he
was unable to make ont their reference,
and could not tell whether it said .de ver-
bus apostolr-"de verbo apostoloIum"-or
de verbs evangeli" Bot az we have said,
he don't do the thing gracefully, for after
tine humbling statement, he proposes to
endorse the correctness Of the very quota
lions which he cannot trace aud to furnish
a truth, which ia a perfect equivalent of a
forgeryM
This is rather a poor showing. But: as
our editor has been compiimented 10y his
brother editors on the ability with which
he proves the Pope infallible, we presume
he represents OF embodies all the learning
and fairness of the editorial fraternity Of
the STAR, and of the Archbishop and
Priests who are it's Directors. They would
hardly go back on their text books, and as
these quotations are endorsed by them as
true, when they use them as arguments,
they cannot evade responsibility, if those
quotations are shown TO be "forgeries or
Frauds -
We have accepted their own challenge to |
DO SO and demand that the CORRECTNESS of |
them we have specified, as for instance of |
Augustine, of Origen, of Irenaeus, and of
TertulliaB. This demand we made four |
weeks ago, and continue to repeat it. We
have before us to-day their attempt to ex-
plain and vfndicate the one which they
charge upon Augustine.
Roma tocutd, cdusG fnitG est.
THE FORGERY OF AUGUSTINE.
1t is admitted then, that Augustine did |.
rot say Roma locuto, causo Jdnita est and
hat We were correct in denounciug it as a !
orgery, so far as the words themselves are
=.
But the Romanists now assert that
hough he did not use these very words,
le used words which mean juas the same
hing, namely, that dicisiou of the Bishop
II Rome is infallible. 70 prove that as
ertion they cite THE passage, from Sermo,
81: Il
" Jam eninS dc hac causa, duo Concilia missd SAINT
d Setiens ApostolicaB inde ethan resc,ipta reno
unit Causa fnita est. Utinam atiqudndo fnia-
lr error" .- r.
We propose to show that this particular
xpression does not furnish the materials
OF general maxim declaring the Bishop
r Pope Of Rome to be infalh6le. IL simp- I
? says:
Already, two Councils have sent concerning .
MS case to an Apostolic See and the answers :
ave come back. The case is ended Oh that
,e error were at length ended. I
We propose to show, that the assertion t
untrue, that by this passage Augustine .
'eant to say what is perfectly equivs-
mt" to these1posed forgery "Roma locuta,
auss fnita est."
l.. Augustine does not even mention the
anne of Rome, in this passage. Hence, if ,
general maxim were to be drawn from it,
could only be, not "Romd locuta," but 6
Apostolica Scdes locuta, causa fnita est.p. t
titled.
To assert that, "There is no difference in 8
Apostolic See has answered. il
Rome has epoken," is only very lame 8
ethod of begging the question. h
Z. There were number of Apostolic.
es. These were churches supposed to o
We been founded by the Apostles, where |,
ostolic doctrine was supposed to be pre- g
rved and transmitted in purity from the a
Uf Dal n I