The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1872-09-29

q u |
nd T. was in his favor principally that
zoaimus il accused Of sustaining the II
Pelagian heresy. Now we saas' IN :,
, former article, that ceiesans .1e
MED holding the Pelagian heresies. teh ?
our neighbor says is not 90, and that - Ns
error. When Pope Zosimus asked Ceiestius
distinctly, " Do you condemn all that sney -.
have published under your name !" Ceies-
tiuA answered in, language which st. An
rustine records for us. 81 condemn 1t ac-
coriing to the sentence Of yosr predecessor |
Innocent Aud not only does st. Argus
tine say 80, but the very counehi OF
Carthage, upon the supposed aneagonism
of which to Zosimus the PresbyteFion relies
20 much, says 30 also and very distinctly,
in it, letter to tho Pope. They say shAs
Tor persona of'limieed intelfigence It wonid
not be sumcient for, Celestius to have said
that he scas in accord With the letter Of A'no-
cent, but he OUGHT etc. Therefore, though
he certainly elsewhere affirmed tho very
same errors in different language, yet the
Pope was inclined tn treat him with Glenn
ency because of his professions of submis-
siveness. Az st. Augustine says in q pas !
sage already cited by ms, ,Celestfus puts
these affrmations of error in that part
of his ibellus where he admitted that
he might be in error and asked to
be corrected if wrong. For this reason,
as st. Augustine continues, and the
Council Of Carthage also say, Zosimus9
called his libellus Catholic because his
4 errors were from ignorance, according to,
|. his sta tement, while his will was to accept
the truth as soon as he should be instruct
cd. A man 10 judged by his intentions,
>, and, according to that crafty hereto, his
intention was perfectly Catholic. There
fore, both st. Aug ustine is right in saying
. he held the errors of Pelagius, and We
were right in saying that he denied holding
- them- ,.
I'd. Our learned neighbor asserts very
. quietly in its Nos. 2 and 8, and with
|. out the shadow of proof, that Celestiua
= appealed to Zosimus from the decision
of Innocent. The fact is that Coles
y thus had appealed several years before
!. to Pope Innocent and his appeal was still
:. pending. AS we have seen above he 'ex'
pressly proclaimed himself to condemn
;. everything that Pope Innocent had con
-. demned. He certainly, therefore, could no
be understood as appealing from his decree
20 3. The error of our neighbours No. is II
:, implying that the letter Of Zosimus, from
:. which it quotes, makes any reference to tn
doctrines of Pelagius in its zeulogium
There ie not solitary word to thst effect
Gu On the contrary, the whole pleasure e1
pressed in that letter 10 based on the efesl
[ly expressed belief that Pelagius and CO
,s' lestius had been basely slandered by
y" couple Of vile men, that they had nev'
MS held the doctrines imputed TO them an
gu condemned by Innocent, and that the
'nu were always perfectly willing to condem
TO every thing that had been 20 condemns
0"' and that consequently they had never bet
"dead OF lost" That Zosimus made I
reference to the condemn ed doctrines In
' congratulation is evident from tho languai
% of st. Augustine. He says: "What iette
- in fine, of tue holy Pope Zosimus, VIII
'ne conversation can be brought forwar
u ", where he taught that it is to be believe
that man is born without original Sill
. Nusquam prorsus hoe dirit, musQuan1 on,ni
conscripsit Never truly did he say
:, never, by any means, did he write it,"
80 4. The fact that the Bishops wanted t
N. Pope to do something more than ne ID
~. done does not show that they protest
against any decision that he had made
an article of faith. They simply want
,o him to make Celestius go farther than
had gone and declare what we're the errc
-. he was willing to condemn. To constr
" - this into protest against some solemn
n cision of point of faith is remarkat
hen weak logic.
10, s, Gin the meantime" says our CANE
shop nelshoor' tne ."pet'f oIo rsISo'
,ask aud Celestius." This is very gross
torv torical blunder. It was not Gin the met
he. timer in the sense of the Presbyterian,
o1r that journal goes on to say that fna
vinp Pope Zozimus changed front and conder
n "a ed the heresy. There is not particle
pope evidence on the page of st. .Augusti'
.,.ae. works cited by our neighbor to show
ed 6nf