The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1872-05-12
The Presbyterian Infallibility.

As usual the Presbyterian, ins stead Of dis
cussing the question at issue, devotes its
attention, and at very great length, to
issues which it raises incidentally, for the
CONVENIENT purpose, perhaps. of evading
difficulties which it cannot meet.
Its FIRST topic is the Baden question. We
wonder, however, at it's soreness
on this point, when we consider its remark
able assertions that nearly all the Catholic
governments of Europe have rejected the
dogma of Infallibility. In the first place,
if true, it would have no bearing on the
question at issue, and, in the second place,
our respected neighbor has utterly failed
to make good it's statement. If any Cath
Ollie government has so declared, all that
is necessary is simply to show the law or
edict. Rumors in court journals and oral
declarations of ministers are no proof, es-
pecially when not in point. circumstances
rejection the Pope's want of liberty in
Italy is NO more rejection of that dogma
than any other; the refusal to promulgate
it in Bavaria and the revocation of q con-
cordat in Austria do not prove at all the
assertion of our neighbor. No. All this
simply shows the insolent interference of
governments in spiritual affairs, an inter-
ference against which the Church Of Christ
has always protested, and which false scots
have always encouraged as their only
chance of existence. If the Presbyterian
simply means that the Catholic govern
ments have been very ugly and rude and
impertinent on this occasion, as we'll as on
thousands Of others, it comes to the very
position which We so often take in relation
to the aggressive = tendency of secular
power, and we could have agreed on all of
it's facts without the slightest discussion.
But to say that the Catholic governments
or any of them have expressed disbelief
in the dogma is utterly baseless. We,
therefore, excuse the Presbyterian for being
SO touchy on this point, considering the
boldness of it's assertion and the utter fail
ure of its proof.
In its fourth division it comes back upon
the subject of Bishop Elders note. Bishop
Elder wrote that the Pope's interest in Ca
and pointedly> manifested that it was a
{" sufficient evidence" that the Divine
Wisdom saw in it desirable means to
effect good. The Presbyterian, thereupon,
finds, LIST, that this is claim for infallibili-
ty in this action of the Pope, and, I'd, that,
if so, then the interest" which st. Peter
once took in Jewish customs was also in
fallible; but st. Peter was wrong about
those customs, therefore be was not infal-
lible; therefore the Pope is not.
To which we have answered, LIST, that
the Pope has not made any definition of
faith on this subject, er- cathedra, there
fore, no matter what any bishop may
say, his "interest is not an infallible ex-
preston, just in the same way as ST.
Peters actions on the occasion referred to
in that connection were not such defini-
ton and not an infallible expression. The
Vatican Council has told us the conditions
on which a definition carries infallibility
with it, and we were cautious enough to
preface this discussion with the exact Ian
guage of the dogma itself. The only proper
test, then, of st. Peters action on the occa-
sion referred to is in the light of the dogma
itself. If his proceedings on that occasion
came within the conditions required by the
dogma, they conveyed an infallible defini-
ton in its sense, but not otherwise, NO
matter what different tests of infallibility
any other bishop or body of bishops may
have given.
We, therefore, accuse the Presbyterian of
making use of an unworthy subterfuge in |
attempting to discuss the question of in
fallibility in any other sense than that of the |
dogma which we published and which it re.
printed. We cay that it deliberately shirks
the issue that it has accepted and makes q !
fierce onslaught upon infallibility as 1t
pretends to find it alluded to Ia the private
writings of a single Bishop. Is this hon
est Is this the serious, candid, straight
forward way of meeting difficulty, which
We might expect of a dignified man who
lespises the littleness of bubble Is
t proper in journalist, whose duties to
he public prohibit him from being n