The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1872-02-11

does not convince. 1t is impossible that
you can hold that AS truth to-day which, y
few months ago, you were declaring to be
error Your submission is q renouncing of
your own reason it is condemned by your
conscience, and is forced from you by au-
thority.' Such is the first objection. Cen
tlemen, the human mind is neither perfect
nor infallible in its researches after that
supernatural truth which is the subject
matter of theology. After prolonged toll,
after deep and learned meditation, after
unwearied efforts to discover truth, aided
per laps by intellectual qualifications of the
highest order, the theologian can only ATTAIN
! to a relative certainty and an incomplete
knowledge OF the truth. Let his under
standing be ever so penetrating, it can go
no higher and no farther. 1t cannot pass
the boundary which God has set to it.
Now, the Catholic Church teaches that the
AID OF the Holy Spirit is given to the Ecu
menlcal Council, and that its DEGREES as to
matters OF faith are the word of God who
cannot deceive nor be deceived. This,
| then, Is the mental attitude of the Catholic
| theologian in the conflict which seems to
some to arise between faith and reason.
His reason affords him Il relative certainty
and an incomplete knowledge. An abso
lutte certainty and complete extrinsic
knowledge are the c0nconitants OF faith.
| The theologian's honor and duty are to
prefer complete knowledge and an
| absolute certainty to an incomplete knowl-
The theoiogian makes an act of faith by
which he acknowledges the weakness of
his own reason and the infinite knowledge
! OF God. Gentlemen, where do you see in
| this any act of weakness, any abdication of
the intellect, or any moral c"wardceR We
who possess the faith declare that Catholic
! submission is act of Christian good
sense. An eminent mathematician, the
celebrated Couchy, has admirably expressed
the true reason of our submission to the
Church. The man of science" (he says)
ought unhesitatingly to reject every ny
pothesis that is in construction to revealed
truth. 1t is of the last importance Cor him
| to do so, not merely regards the inter
ests of religion, but also in the interest of
science. because one truth can never con-
tradict another. The second objection is,
that the Council was not free. BY what
marks, they ask us, can you discriminate IL
pretended Council from true one , Gen
tlemen, this objection is u very old one.
From the Council IF Ephesus to that of the
Vatican, it has been heard from the mouths;
OF ieretics, and 1T the most critical times
of the Chulch's history. l turn tot
Bishops, who were personally witnesses Of )
the proceedings of the Council, and say
to them Were you free and moral agents !,
when you defined the infallibility of the !
successor of st. PeterY 1t is for YOU to le- /
ply. It is Il question Of fact. Or how lit J
tie value in deciding it are the anonymol, +
lnslnuations of pamphlets and newspapers,
written in the heat of dispute, to get .
greater hherty Behold the 600 Bishops
WHO hlsneu the Decree of the Vatican
Council. Now;>if these prelates had liber-
~ enough to constitute them moral agents.
then have :hey played false to the commits
sion they hold from God, lied to their own
consciences, led the laity ~ustray, and de-
based their own characters Hut whic. of
us, gentlemen, will dare to load the bishops
with such charges as these, with deliu-
quencles that must have incurred the an
ger of Coda What, too, becomes of the
Ecctes'd Oocens what of the promises of r
Our Lord No, they have not been false to
their commission, neither have they degra-
ded their own character, nor led they Gocks
lstray: They have done their duty, and
proved by their vote that the Counci! really
was free. Gentlemen, the present is dark, {
md the rroximate future defics the ,
IF anger aud Of blood had the up. ;
'cr hand, they chose for hostages aud |
or martyrs the men of Cancellation aud of ,
pardon: Darboy, Deguerry, Olvaint and &
!aI'tlcr. All is preparing for u final and {
desperate conflict between good and evil t
between those who will not be ;!ured by :
he good, and those whose forhearance has c
allied to overcome the evil. Let us rally I
o the unity of the Church and the integrity |
# faith. Happy those who may fall in Ii
he defence of justice and in the assertion l
# principle" il
AT. dc -hontdirm6cyt. The A66y Gr0fry, +
nd N. LoHson.-The CHyoniQuc dc Dijon t
piece of intelligence winch will II
&c gratifying to all Catholics though it will b
ot surprise anybody. 1t is that papers "
eft by the Comte de Montalembert con tain a
he most uneQuivocal proof of his resolve \
0 SIT hmit to the decisions of the Council Of II
lie Vatican whatever they might be- The II
paper adds that interesting com q
with reference t" this snb- )
ect will shortly be published. No one can a
loubt that Nj. de Montalembert, had his I
lie been spared, would have made an act Il
II submission such as that which gave an a
ddltlonal lustre to his name and to that of D
he Able Lacoidairc, at an earlier period e
II their career; and such us that which y
as, on this occasion, been made by Mgr
)arh"y, Mgr. Maret, the Able Crafty, and
theirs who, more or less, belonged to the r
ame school of thought. In his case, us in c'
hat of those whom we have mentioned, 81
ucli an act of faith.would probably have c
revoked the same sarcastic and con- IL
criticism which has been heapcd As
pom the Able Crafty, but in his case, as s.
+ theirs, it would come from those who o