The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1873-01-12
IYToA tAs sosssWssssGA PEssbytsE1An.i
EHRkLLIBILTKx IN THH LAST DITCH.


Our Romish nSlghbors seem to find this dis
cussion Improbable and notify Is. that s, snSy
have deternslped 20 drop Is twill be disap-
pointn,ent to many, but they claim this ~ their
excuse: r L.,
lis concerned, the discussion OF the great 9usS
iion Of tnfaIlfbility has narrowed iseen Gown
| 70 pere0Bsl abuse Of us.-them-ana g H ~
sissent misunderstanding Of the question! we
notify o1F neighbOr that IN our next alsISIe sso
| The grounds over which We have travelled
| have not been touched by Our opponent, OK.
cept on the ogtskirts. It keeps mp KING OF
show Of wsr by salliss OF small VII a mo fstS0
coutonGion on poiHts that Aare scarcely any '"'"1
| 70 do with the subject"
| ether good resolution comes too late: Inc
true idea and meaning Of paPal infanl1lilty
haS been already disclosed all its nonetrous
pretAnsions and tendencies fatal to morality ss
we'll as 10 civil liberty have been noe Only eo-
mitted but boldly maintained In mains EiIih,g
the principle that there Sc called tnfalliDle
spiritual authorities are men who are at the
same time distinguished for the vilest crimes
It 10 too late therefore, to propose to proceed 70
another branch of the subject. The murder Is
already cut.
Their attempt to svade the further discus.
sion of this foul claim under the Pretext, that
we misunderstood the question and nave not
to review what they call their grounds" and
the sort of "traveling," they have made use or
to get over them.
clare that Protestant organs are unwilling for
their followers to know the truth" on TINS
question of infallibility; they therefore "chal-
lenge you-us-to public discussion OF the
cIss If We viii publish theirs. They expressed
the greatest anxiety, lest we should shrink
from this mighty undertaking; say they; n.
"Yet somehow our courage fai h u.s. % GSs
know that it's back-out, will be excused with the
most subtle reasoning and an infnity Of good
reasons. still it will back-out. But we warn it
here. and we here I'd ds aa1 shfe"'eh 'nA'
We accepted this urgent invitation: ana re-
uuested our neighbors to proceed. we MADE
the natural remark:
been constituted infallible by divine authority
God Himself cannot have been Ignorant OF the
fact we expect oDr learned friends, therefore,
to prove that fact from the DIVINE recora.sn a
Word of God. If, however, it Is true as an 40
tual fact, that he is infallible, while Jet the
Divine record has unfortunately forgotten 70
state it, let them bring forward the facts 6y
which it 10 proved that the pope is infalliblo
and we will bow to their authority. Facts re-
membert Not opinions.
Their next issue assents to these conditions,
and says: -, - 49,.
Presbyterian's acceptance of our proposition to
discuss the dogma of papal infallibiity; But
strangely enough that paper has thanked us on
.
ready to meet any attacks on the dogma and
proposed to publish such attacks aud then re-
snond TO them. However our
nei chbor puts the chip on his own head, we
Now what is the result OF thelr conndent
appeal to the Biblef The answe is found in
the lame and impotent conclusion published IN
their paper of April 2lst.
Our texts still require explanation.
But let MS 60 on step We may Tsang ns i ssk
what did the Fathers of the Church think7
In their paper of July 2ist, they admit that
"A prolonged. patient, honest and prayerful
research has totally failed to produce anything
Millions OF intslligent Professionals cannot find
in the Bible any promise OF infaiiibiiiey either
to church or pope"
After their sounding manifesto, the monn
tain at length brings forth only q mouse, and
they must admit that they can produce for the
benefit of the millions Of intelligent, honest
sincere and prayerfn1 protestants, no proof of
papal infa!li6ility from the WORD OF Ged. A..
l. Such being the result of their raid on the
Bible, our neighbors desired to proceed to
another branch of the subject" We stiPula-
ted that if the Bible should fail them, they
must bring forward the facts by which it 10
proved that the pope is infallible. Facts, not
opinions
They offer MS what they affirm to be the op'n-
ioms of early Church writer's. We did not ask
for opinions, nor would any intelligent, honest
and prayerfal Christian feel bound to accept as
conclusive, the opinions of uninspred men
when it is an admitted fact that the Inspired
writer's cannot be shown to have sanctioned
the claim.
Yet if tina opinions of the Fathers are to be
quoted as deciding the question, every enc will
see that on o matter Of such Importance, they
ought to be full, numerous, clear and unmista-
ka6le. But the learned Dollinger In . letter
to the Archbishop of Munich published in
April, 1871 says:
The Fathers Of the church, have all, Without
exception, explained the texts in question as
bearing a totally different meaning from the
new DEGREES, anil have found anything but an
infaiiibiiity given to the pope. This am
prepared to prove to tho Bishops 10 Cornell sS.,
was endorsed by Archbishop Kenrick, at the
Vatican Council, in o document distributed
among its members.
But not content with this conclusive evil
dance. our neighbor insists on producing their
own citations from the Fathers; to which,
when we consented, they produced o number
of passages which they asserted were true ex-
tracts, and which they declared they were
able and rendy to prove, and which they ehal-
longed us to deny. We selected several which
al ,,,oat irnp INIT and Asked than Tn