The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1872-05-05
From the Southwestern Presby terianI
1NFALLIBILlTY IN TIE MODERN CHURCH

The charge made against Roman writer's,
"of denying or suppressing known facts in
| reference to the rejection Of the Pope's In
| fallibility, by Romsh Governments in Eu-
rope" our Roman contemporary claims, sis
unjust 30 far as they know" Aud they
give Ms to understand that they were not
cognizant Of these facts. We admit their
explanation to this extent, although we had
right to suppose that Journalists would
be informed of familiar facts of current
history facts which are made public pro-
perty, by means of the publication and diff
fusion OF the public documents and official
records. If ignorant of facts like these,
their information must be limited indeed.
Their admission Of ignorance on this
tive assertion-that Romish Governments
In Europe did not reject this dogma-was
not based upon any information in reference
to the subject.
2. But they charge as an offset to these
significant facts that governments "nearly
of the true religion"-so- called. Let Ame-
ricans heed the answer European govern
ments make to that charge! They declare
that The professions Of the Pupacy, are an
invasion of the liberties of conscience, and
an encroachment on the right of States.
bates in the Parliaments of Bavaria, Badin,
and Prussia, 1871.
3. A singular flight is attempted in the
article we publish to-day. They give a
quotation from Dollinger to show that their
theory is sustained by a man eminent both
even more wonderful that they should be
Ignorant of his opinions, than of those of
the Austrian Government.
In letter to the Archbishop of Munich,
published in April, 1871, copy of which
10 before us, Dollinger discusses the uni
versal power and infallibility of the Pope.
He says:
The new articles of faith, are based upon the
texts in the Holy Scriptures, Matt. 16, 18 and
John Il. IL and rs far as infallibility is con-
cerned, on Luke 90, 81, with which the same,
Bibllcally considered, must stand or fall. But
We are bound by solemn oath, to accept and
explain the Holy Scriptures, not otherwise
than according to the unanimous consent of the
Fathers. The Fathers of the Church have all
,rhOMt exception, explained the texts in ques-
ton as bearing totally different meaning to
the new DEGREES and especially in Luke, 90,
81 have found anything but an infallibility
to the Pope. l am prepared to prove this to
the Bishops in Council.
In concluding his letter, he says:
AS a christian, as a historian, as n citizen, /
cannot accept this doctrine,-of infallibility.
Not as a Christidn-For it is irreconcilabie with
the spirit of the Gospel, and with the plain
words of Christ and the Apostles. 1t purposes
just that establishment of the Kingdom of this
world, which Christ rejected.
Not as q Theologian-For the whole true ira
dition of the Church, is in irreconcilahle OPP
position to it.
Not as a Histoyian-For as such know that
the persistent efforts to realize this theory of IL
kingdom of the world, has cost Europe rivers
Of blood, has COMPOUNDED and degraded whole
countries, and has begotteu fed, and sustained
the worst abuses in the Church.
ftnauy-As citizen, must put it away
| from me, because by it's claim OH the submis-
sion of States and Monarchs, and of the whole
| political order under the Papal po wer, and by
the exceptional position which it claims for
| the clergy. it lays the foundation of endless,
| ruinous dispute, between clergy and laty, be-
tween the State and the Church.
Such is the solemn Judgment of a man
who at the time he uttered it, was q full,
regular, uudisputed, prominent and honor
ed member of the Romish Church. Aud as
he has not receded from this opinion, we
think he would be surprised to learn that
Romish writer's in New Orleans, are rely
ing on him, to help them to prove that the
Pope is infallible.
AS in the former case, want of accurate
information leads them to make an impress
sion just the reverse of the truth. Such 10
the line of argument by which our learned
friends propose to prove that the Pope is
infallble.
Would it not be better for their cause to
make no assertions, rather than make such
as are so easily disproved7 Their readers
will surely be tempted to think, that the
crock on which they build" their faith in
this dogma, is rather hard to find.
IL.
Our Roman neiShbors did not hesitate to
promise to prove from Scripture that Peter
was iufallible. We still wait to see that
promise fulfilled. They admit that Christ
during his lifetime did not acknowledge
Peter to be infallible. We would like to
see some evidence that any one afterwards
ackno wledged him to be infallible. Show
US where the Apostles or the churches ad-
mitted it; Show us where Potter himself
claimed it! This las not even been at
tempted.
But when We have shown that the con-
trary is true that the Apostles, churches
and Peter himself took it for granted that
he was not infallihlc. They that tell us
that infallibility does not mean what we
suppose it to mean.
We, however, cite n definition Of infalli-
bility given by Bishop Elder of Natchez
and published by them in n paper under
the approval of the Archbishop of New
Orleans, viz: MORNING STAR AND CATHo-
Lie MESSENGER, of April ID:
The interest which the Holy Father has SO
frequently manifested of late in Catholic AS