The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1873-04-13

tempted after fashion to peck Mt, but to
| those which it has not even pretended to
answer.
So far from doing this, it has constantly
sought to avoid the tissue by opening up
new topics of controvsrsy-notably the
| character of the Jesuits, the personal
character of certain Popes, and alleged cru
elites in the Canon Law.
These things have nothing to do with
their introduction into the controversy is
| a mere impertinepce-we mean in the log
ical sense. The Popes are certainly not
free from sin and error just like all other
men, except from error as defined in the
dogma of Infallibility, and they have new
er made any preteuse of the kind. Why
then in a controversy on Tnfallibility intro
duce such themes Why exclaim triumph
antly " the Popes have sinned, therefore
idea of Infallibility does not embrace that
subjectf
The Popes may do grievous wrong in
certain portions of what is called Canon
Law, just as they may in any other action
which does not come within the definition
of the dogma of the InfalibiIity. We do
not now say that they have done so In tie
instances cited by the Presbyterian. That
is question to be discussed separately.
The quotations given are from edicts of
EmperQrs and other temporal potentates
which are not part of the Canon Law,
but which seem to be sanctioned by it. To
what extent sanctioned, would have to be
examined. What they really meant, would
have also to be examined in the light of
what was afterwards done.
Certainly the Canon Law never sane
toned proceedings against heretics who
were in invincibls ignorance, yet these
edicts seem to be sweeping. Certainly,
reference must have been had only to those
guilty of crime, for otherwise Jews and
Pagans would have been included as
equally far from the truth. And most GER
tainly the Pope, as Pope, never taught as
truth, to be believed by all, that heretics
must or might be punished for mere en-
ror of judgment or opinion, not criminal
in it's fruits.
We are perfectly willing to discuss these
things in their place, but not out of place.
Before entering upon them we must insist
on clear and distinct answer to our argu-
ments in this controversy or an admission
of their copclusiveness. If we should per-
NIT ourselves to be drawn off into another
discussion without terminating the first,
the very same thing might happen again,
and our willy adversary would start new
subject of discussion every time he got
cornered on the one in hand.
We, therefore, insist positively on these
conditions, and to show that We are right
we again publish the very paragraph with
which we commenced this discussion.
THE DOGMA OF PAPAL AVAILABILITY.
The Roman Pontif, ,chen he speaks lex
cathedra,' that IS to say, achen discharging the
functions of Pastor and Doctor of ali Chris
tians, by virtue Of his supreme Apostolic
authority, he defines a doctrine regarding
td,M or morals to be held by the universal
Church, fully enjoys, by the divine asset
dnce promised to him in blessed Peter, the
same intdlibiLity ,chich our Divine Redeemer
Intended His Church should be endo,ced ,uih
Jor defining doctrine concerning faith or
morals and consequently such definitions of
me Roman Pontif are Of themselves irreforna-
d0te, and not from the consent of the Church.
'lF ANY ONE SHALL PRESUME, WHICH
MAY GOD FORBID, TO CONTRADICT THIS OUR
DEFINITION, LET HIM BE ANArHEMAn
~