The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1872-05-19
From the Southwestern PresbyterisnJ
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.

PAPAL INFALLBnITY.
cial proofs of the generally and well known
fact, that the Governments of ROmish coun-
tries in Europe reject the pretensions of
the papacy/ which are summed up in the
dogma Of infallibility. After the citations
we we hi haze s, already made, their dsmsnd
with the literature of the question. The
Year Book, published by the Appleton's
for ten years past, is mainly collection of
public documents and official information
ON matters of current history and is re-
garded as authority both in Europe and in
this country. Any one who reads Eng
lish, may see for himself that their persist
emit denials are denials Of we'll authenti-
Gated fact.
Our learned friends declare that Arch
bishop Kendrick is mistaken in saying the
fathers can be classified, and that the same
writers can be found in two or three differ
emit classes. Every scholar knows that
the Archbishop is right. The same fathers
express different views in different parts of
but on many others. Our learned friends
are not as familiar with the writings of the
fathers, as we have right to expect them
to be.
noSeyy is We bsSa Ra
that it was not an article of faith in the
Romish church before July 10, 1870. On
the contrary it was denied, impugned and
denounced as Protestant Islander. 1t is
now an article of faith, and it ia declared
| that men cannot deny it save at the peril
of their salvation. Is not there a dogma, a
| novelty, which is not two years old
Our learned friends say we are arguing
against an idea of infallibility which Is not
accepted by them.
Now ! a fair analysis of the official def
milton leads to precisely the same results,
as Bishop Elders; which is, that the will
| OF the Pope represents the wisdom and au-
thority of Almighty God-on alt questions
which the Pope may choose to consider of
believe, was a member of the Vatican
Council, would not be apt to speak without
consideration on this question. He informs
Romanists what they are expected to be-
lieve .on this question, and the light in
which they are expected to regard it. He
tells them that "the interest manifested by
the Pope" on certain subject-"is stuff
J cient evidence"-that divine wisdom en-
dorses it. "Verily"-in the language of
Archbishop Kendrick-"thjsis a royal road
to the discovery of the truths Of faith.
And yet it is not without it's dangers for
the Pope and the Church. Once imbued
with this conviction, the holier in life, the
purer in purpose, the more fervent in piety
the Pope should be, the more dangerous he
would prove both to himself, and to the
Church which according to this system,
derives it's infallibility from him. What
need would there be to a Pope who accept
ed this notion, of the counsel of his breth-
rem, the opinions of theologans or the
documents of the Church Believing him
self to be Immediately led by the Divine
Spirit, and that this Spirit is communica-
ted through him to the Church, there would
!, be nothing to hold him back from pressing
. on in a course in which he had once
f entered"
These consequences of the principle,
prore it to be false.
Concio p. X. Kendrick, at supra.
We would advise our learned frien,., TO
read the complete text of the dogmatic de-
cree in connection with the extracts we
have made from the letter of Dollinger,
the address of Archbishop Kendrick, the
observations of Able Michaud, the state
ments of the Year Book, and ABOVE all
with the teachings of the Holy Scriptures /;
should they do SO, in the spirit of docile
submission to higher authority and in
SEPARATION, than that Of man, they will sure
+ ~ find, that for Christian men, there is but
one course open-in respect to this mon
strous assumption of infallibility, and that
is-to denounce it.
Either do this, or make good the offer to
prove from Scripture the Pope's infallibili-
ty. Meantime we reserve the privilege of
reviewing the admissions they have already
made, in this, as we'll as in previous
articles.