The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1872-12-08
IRON the South esssrn Presbyterian-I
WHAT PAPAL lNFALLlBILITY 1EAMS'
PRELIMINARY.

1. Oar Romish neighbors confidently main
tain that Tertullian endorses papai infalhoiLNy.
can do so in tho face of our quotation from
Tertullian, which they profess 70 PuOisn ln
their paper. Tho explanation is simple ln
of November 10th, they change the language
Of the quotation, to express just tho opposite
of its true meaning. The quotation is as foi-
"Tertullian, de praescript adr. haeret, c. 50,
Traverse the Apostolic churches where are
tho chairs of the Apostles in which are seated
tho Bishops who have succeeded them, where
to-day are still read their authentic episties OF
which each one has rs it were the sound OF the
voice and the face of the author. Are you
to Macedonia, you have Philiippi and 1aessa
lonica. If you go towards Asia you have Ephe
sus. If you are near Italy you ba Az ho"e'
whence also authority is afforded u.s.
Our honest ncighbors substitute All for
| ALSO" in the last line making 10 read Rome
whence all authority is afforded u.s. r,
liam endorses papal infalli bility, by faisifying
orr quotation. They tell us how cruelty n
hurts their feelings for Us to speak publicly OF
| such things; we only point out the taet, anu
| tender our sympathy.
2. They also censure severely DOR poor trans
lation Of Augustine. We referred 10 Angus
fore Melchiades of Rome and Council Of
| Bishops. Augustine says that the Danatisfs
| did mot intend to submit to the decision OF the
Pope of Rome and the other Popes or Bishops
| comprising the Council, uniess tho decision
vas favorsble to them He said their plan
was, if the decision were unfavorable, to say.
which is the common plea Of all evil iisigants
| who are justly condemned, as If, says he: It
could not be most justly replied TO them; Ecce
Judged ct Rome were not good judges, there
yet remained pienary council Of the whole
Church, whore both the case and the judges
} | yersed. He Roes ON 20 bid them show whether
they had done this, eto. This constraes psten.s
from psto-to suppose or think in the SUI
iunctivo, with the sense of tho Imperitive,
which is q very common usage. making it the
answer to the Donatists. Our learned neigh
bora say, these are the words of the Mon at'sts
tho word pstemus, to be found in the Indicative
present. Now, it is true, there is such o word
, as pstemas in tho Indicative present, but II
q comes from the root pateo, which means, " t.
have bad SMELL" . confession which we dc
not think the Donatists would be anxieus &c
r make, and which has nothing to do with the
q eustine's Latin and the Latin of our learned
. neighbors, is just the difference between hini
4 and stink. 1t would appealathat in their crit
!, cal Investigations, our learned neighbors have
d merely discovered another elaborate mare.
| nest.
We pass by with regret, the other Irisl
Bulls and bluuders which course SO gaily
throug hout their argument.
l. We proceed to consider the more importan nj
q points of their two articles, which we publish
sodsy TO enable our hs Tsadsrl IT to veIfy o
u number of passages in these articles We In
vite attention to the curious admissions, in
tended to answer our charges. They seem de
l. signed to show that there is
! FALLIBLE POPE.
( 1. They admit that the infallibIe pope is not
infallible. :. in the ordinary administration OF
his charge"
2. They confess that the so-called infallible
pope may be guilty of any sin. or make any
: error of judgment" and they will still regard
q him as an infallible authority and guide.
3. They acknowledge that the BILE pope
= may readily be mistaken as to whether an
> individual is gnilty of holding heretical doc
d trine not"
But if the pope is infallible only in the decis-
" ion of abstract principles, yet is liable to the
s same errors as other men in the application OF
=, principles, what is his infallibility worth ioz
ering the guiltyf Their admission shows that
s the appeal of any innocent man to such a tEi-
:, bunal is an inexsusable blaader.
s 4. They acknowledge that Pope Zozimus
u was deceived as to the guilt of Celestius in
b holding the Pelagian heresy."
S. They admit that after infaiible pope In
noceut condemned Celestius, that infaliib1e
Pope Zozmus granted him a rehearing or
ment."
b 6. They admit that after Innocent con
Il demned celestius, Zozimus " absoIved him from
!. They admit that the reason Zozimus de
Il clared Celestius orthodox, Was that she crafty
= Irishman overcame Zozinus by the use OF
blarney, In feigning docile submission to pa
pal wisdom. -.-..
d 9. They admit that in this case Zozmus die
n not claim infalltbihty, in fact expressly, dis
claimed it," ....:H
9. They admit that the infallible Zozimu,
b remained deceived until undeceived by the ial
r lible African Bishops.
y 10. They confess that Zozimus praised tn.
" faith of Pelagius true and Catholic" al
though it was neither true nor Catholic.
IL. They confess, now, that none of the
is parties" in this case, considered Zozimus a
Is adjudicating on any subject whatever, tina ;:
l. bility as defined by the Council of the Vati
4, can" From which, it appears, that the famous
% msquotation, Apostolicd sede iocutd, cdasd finite
Q est, had no reference to pspal infallibiity.
st IL. They also confess, now, that they "ds
r, not say that belief in papal infailibility wa
!. an article eff faith in those days, and that al
men held it.n
Is. They further confess that when the cas-
is of the Donatsts tried before pope Mel
~ chiades, that this pope was not infafibie.
IA. And, finally, they ackno wledge that, ii
sueh instances as we have cited, and in many
{ others the pope is faliible. That he is q fal
q lible Bishop, o fallible Archbishop, falliblt