The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1873-03-16

ever taken by any council.
! Is it possible in the face of such facts, to
doubt that the Popes always claimed and
exercised the right OF final Jurisdiction
! over questions of Faith and Morals and
that the whole church submitted to it and
recognized IFS
We have promised to repubIish certain
charges of the Presbyterian, in connection
with Tertullian's, text, and reply to them
as soon as we have been furnished with the
necessary data, and We BOW comply with
the promise. Those charges are as fol
Iowa:
For instance we have Repeatedly expressed
the eff"rts TO Wenigerize Tertnllian, and we
on our files Consider the Wepigerisms on this
one point 1. They asserted that Iertnllian
believed and Taught papal 'Dfa1iibiiity; 2
They declared that he said in reference to it,
what he never said; 3 In publishing the quot
tation in our article, Oct. 27th they fals!fied
our quotation TO make it correspond to their
own a. They also fasffy it in precisely the
Sept. 5th, as If to add qualification TO fraud
they give the quotation correctly IS. in their
Paper of Dec. 9Th, they publish withoat reply
ders; :, In their Paper of Dec. 22d, they deny
that they practiced any fraud; b, AND after
these repeated exposures, they assert so,day
that our quotation and theirs rs identicar; 3,
We mi Q ho add that in the Same Paper of Nov
10th. they deliberately deceive their readers
by leaving out paragraph denonncing their
other quotations as fraudulent; 10, And in
their Paper of Jan 12th they assure their rsss-
quotations."
70 these we answer:
L. We did not. g. We did not. g.
Not so. The reprint which we gave of the
,Ptessytsrian's article contained che typo
graphical error of I" all instead of "also ~
but this did not make it correspond with
our own translation. On the contrary we
had never used the word " all" This ty
biographical error was totally unknown to
the editor Of this paper, and was an over
sight of the proof reader. 1t was only in
the reprint aud never appeared in our edi-
torials. If the Presbyterian had called our
attention to the misprint at the time, as it
ought to have done, the correction would
have been made iustanter.
and 8. These nre both explained at
the same time. The Presbyieri0n of Oct.
3lst Es72, republisbed the article contain
ing the plsase wherein WAS the error
above mentioned. In q previous column
the following announcement was made by
it:
Our Romisn neighbors tell us that
they have. not space enough, for the dis
cusson of the second part of our article.
In order to furnish them space, which will
enable them to answer that part leisurely, and
fully, we repub lish it to-day.
Instead of copying from their paper, our
foreman naturally used as copy the reprint
that had been previously made In this pa
per, thereby repeating the same error.
Moreover by this means an additional par
agraph interpolated by the Presbyterian
10 it's reprint, was of course left out be-
cause it was not at all in the first edition
T lis is the omission of which complaint
was made inspumber 9. But the singular
part of all this is, that the Presbyterian did
not notify us of it at the time, instead OF
saving it up for some future exigency
when it might have nothing else to say.
S. We always gave it correctly. G.
| Because we had not the slightest idea OF
| what they were abiding to. z. Of course
8. Aud We repeat it.
10. The denial of our quotations was
made in the paragraph omitted through er
ror, caused by the Presbyterian itself, al
above explained. OF course we knew moth
ing about it.