The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1872-04-28

Ieu1 news on THESE points, OnC wnefe Cney
appear to us as having no special signii-
canoe, we are not careful to retain their
memory. AS to the facts quoted, we see
no such significance even now. Austria
may be said in one sense to be Catholic
government, that is to say, it is the govern
ment of Catholic people, but the Prime
Minister, Won Beust, was a Protestant, and
his successor is almost as little of Catho-
lie as he was. But even SO, the fact stated
by the Presbyterian does not show in any
manner that the Austrian government, or
even Won Beust, had declared a positive
disbelief in the dogma.
AS to Baden, 65 per cent of the popula-
ton may be Catholic, but the government
may not be. We deny positively that there
is any probability of it's being such, and ask
for the proof.
But suppose it were, and suppose Austria
had by legal enactment declared the dogma
of 1nfallibility anti-Christian, what has
that to do with the question: The gov
eminent is but the collection of few in
dividuals, and, so far as religious questions
are concerned, their action has no meaning
except as the expression of individual
opinions. 1t is no proof Of popular senti-
ment. The government of France, the most
Catholic country of Europe, is generally in
the hands of infdels and Freemasons. Its
President now-Mr. Thiers-is a Protest
ant. Governments generally grasp at
spiritual power, which does not belong to
them. Very often they create a religion
mi Oh hpk
always they insolently infringe upon the
domain of the true religion and make angry
demands for jurisdiction which is wholly
spiritual.
1t is we'll for Professionalism, which lives
by the consent of governments, and -four
ishes only in their smiles, to place SO much
importance upon the fat of a High Chaucel-
lor or the insolence of court journal. The
Catholic Church existed during its first
three centuries in spite of the open per-
secution of all governments, and it has
continued to exist ever since in the face of
their secret hostility when it was not open.
On the question of st. Peters infallibility
our neighbor is still in the dark-inno-
Gently, let us hope. It wants to know
,chcn he became Pope. In reply we say
Pope during the presence of our Saviour
on earth, since He was then the visible
head of His own Church, and the Pope is
only His vicar during His absence.
We call the special attention of all can
did readers to the argument of the Presby-
terrain in the No. 2 of it's second division.
1t says "We are asked what we have to
say to the words Thou art Peter etc.n
Its answer is that infaliibility could not
have been implied in either of the texts re-
ferred to, because we admit that st. Peter
did not become infallible on the spot.
And this is it's answer, put. forward for
maily as such. Its former answer to our
argument from these texts was shown to be
perfectly inapplicable, the present one is
just as baseless. Each one of these texts
referred to tho future and not to the
present. By their own terms the infalli-
bility was to be in the future. Thus, "Thou
art Peter, and upon this rock 1 ,rul build !
My Church," not 81 have built it,
Again, "and thou being once converted,
confirm thy brethren, not al being notv
converted" What then becomes of the
Presbyteriam's triumphant answer that St.
Peter did not become infallible instantly
The same fate must attend every effort
to distort the meaning of these texts from
their plain Specification.
We are told that the Apostles did not
act as though they thought St. Peter infal.
lble.. We reply that, in our opinion, the
tay IF fhn
proposition, but rather the contrary one,
that they did think so, but the discussion
would be too diffuse one for the present
occasion.
The letter Of Bishop Elder is referred to,
in which he says that the interest which
the Holy Father has manifested in Catholic
associations ought to be sufficient evidence
that the Divine Wisdom goes In than, nm |