The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1872-10-27

Basifica OK st. Clement, nn0-AoesNss
claims that fuller evidence as p TSs,ens nrs
decessor gave his infallible verdict, on IN
sufficient evidence. He declares that the
men pronounced heretics by bis preoeces
sor, are Orthodox; aud that their dcctrine
pronounced false by his predecessor, IS
was no contpadiction between the two de-
cisions most people will think diferent-
ly. They say too, that Zosimus was De.
ceived both as to the faith and morals OF
these heretics, yet at the samo time that ne
morals; which is . sslf-evident abs1rdity.
Augustine says De Pecc orig. &C.
The meaning of Pelagius, which he either
feared or blushed to acknowledge to you-his
a assss S ss na. to psss
the Apostolic See."
8. Next, we have statement of Facun-
dus-that the sentence OF Zoslnue Was
contrary to that of Innocent-contro sdmGtt
InnocentI sui deeessoris senten"an"'. de
Gays:
"They may find, that the blessed Zosimus
! bishop of the Apostolic See, contrary 10 tne
sentence of his predecessor, st. 1nnocent-who
| FIRST condemned the Pelagian heresy-PrMsihe
gus, and of his accomplish, Celestius, VINO;
Condemned BY the Church of Carthage. and
appealing to the Apostolic See, he himself h fa;
can bishops Who believed those men heretics.
Facundus Episo Hermianensis, Lib. 2. G: 3. Dc
Errore Palest Episcs, ct ipsius Aosimi Fapae'
8. Next, we have the statement Of Prosper
that in the Autumn of All, council OF Airi-
| can Bishops, wrote to Zosimus In rePiy-.we
Peiasius and Celsstius shall stand until they
| publicly confess "Constituimus in Peiag,nm
atque celestipm par venerabilen annoSe a1sta
manere sententiarn, donec, etc.
when the Synod of Carthage received
the decision of Zosimus, they not only pro
tested, but without hesitation rejected 1t,
| which was a very summary proceeding II
they considered him infallible. 9a!
10. After this, we have e letter from
Zosimus promising to reconsider the mat
ter.
IL. Then we have the edict of Honorius,
denouncing Pelagius and Celestius, as
heretics. The edict 10 dated April 3oth,
4ls.
I2. Then We have the final condemn ma
ton by the African General Council, dated
NAV Ist, ALB. In eight canons, they specify
and condemn without qualification or re-
servation, the heresies Of the Pelagiaas
ID. And following this, is the circular
Of Zosimus accommodating Pe!agins and
Ceiestius, without any further rehearing Of
> the case.
, After his infallible decision Zosimus ID
: willing to re-examine the ease, and SO &C
cept an appeal from his own so-calied in
= fallible decision, but the Pelagians fee
that nothing is to be gained and do not sp
, nouncing these orthodox men, whose pietJ
: aud prosecutions had SO touched his feel
inss-pronouncing them to be heretics-
. and changed front, backed down, and ex
= communicated them without further trial
Q and the Benedictines say it 10 reported
. impelled by the influence Of the edict o
: the Emperor.
The reader can judge whether this con
tradicts his own previous sentence.
!. The Pelagians were unable to resist tn
y com bined force of all these edicts. Blu
l. that they did not consider the question q
% infallibly decided, even then, is eviden
:, from the fact set forth at length by tn
y Bepedictines, vol. 10, p. lIa, that Julia'
and seventeen other bishops announced t
t Zosimus that they appealed from the de
:, cision to that of a general council, "ad pie
y nariae Synod judicium Sc provocare, Pom
F. tifici declarant." ., .-...
n IA. Prosper saye-Zosmus added tn
D. strength of his sentence to that of til
k dates of the documents that the sentenc
e of the Emperor preceded that Of tn
g Bishops. So that If the sentence of Zosi
mus followed that of the Bishops-as th
Benedictines also declare, and it must ais
l. have come after the edict of Honorious, il
" gloriously in the rear of these importar
a. movements against the great heresy of tbs
of is. Now as to what strength the tard
,g and contradictory sentence of Zosimus &C
ne ded to the other decisions it would be har
he to pronounce, but in q letter of Aureliu
bishop of Carthage, felcitating the Africa
,ir bishops on the settlement Of the eontrt
to versy-he refers to the edict OF HonoriI
e. and the decree of the general council {
ne Africa, but says not one word about tt
sentence of Zosimus.
9s, The4suthorities cited, show that IL
es Synod Of Carthage did not ask the bisho
in of Rome to tell them whether Pelagianis
in was heretical, for they had decided thu
he point in two Of their own Synoda the
d. show that Celestius did not regard Innt
on cents decision infallible, for he appeale
tn fromit; they show. that Zosimus did NJ
ao regard it as infallible for he entertaine
~ the appeal, granted new hearing, ar
ta pronounced a contrary decision they sho
an that the Synod of Carthage did not regal
II the decision of Zosimus infallible, for the
to rejected it, and at o General Council, he
70 in the next year, they pronounced an n
to conditional and full decision against Pei
Se oianism and all who advocated it tho