, 1874-12-03

wlthous sienaturo, although 1t Is by the same
gentleman who signod tho former one. "Ameti-
can Cathollc."1
Elsc Vatican ElceEceps
To the Editor Of The cA'ea9o tTioune:
SIN: 1t Ia curious to noto how often mistakes
arc mado III estimating beforehand tho effect
which anticipated occurrences or measures will
havo on tho public mind. Thus an American
Roman Catloc bishop, n member Of tho Yasi~
can Council, told an American gontlonan. thon
in Rome, that II tho docrccs defining infalibilt-
ty, otc. ahou!d pass tho Council, Le [the Bishop}
would not roturn TO lis diocese. 1lo
thought tho proposed DEGREES go opposed to
American ideas that their enactment would
raise commotion which would make 1t very un-
comfortable for him at homo. But tho dccrces
pussod, aad hardly raised . ripple In tho public
thought in that BIHliop's Diocese, or anywhere
elBc. or coulHo, those who are accustomed to
watch tho growth nnd decay Of principles as em-
bodied In institutions, looked upon tho doinGa u
tho Council with the ]iyolicss interest. Tho
body o., tho people, however, seemed scarcely to
zeus made l,ttlo domoustration Of eithor dissent
CT approval.
ThiB npparent indifference is not to be atlribut-
cd to any opiuon that tho docrccs ase not il'con-
Biotent with American ld1as Of civil and religious
liberty. They AFRO so obviously opposed, IN
statement at least. to tho prevalent sentiment,
not only ia America, but in tho civilized world.
thai. tLoro 10 TO LIVELY apprehension Of their
to back them up. Their penalties mist bo
wholly imR9inary,--Eo much so. indeed, tint the
Average American nay look upon thnir enact-
ment as only M ecclesiastical form, mcaut or
expected to Layo lttlo effect, except upDu those
who aro very susceptible to tito tcrrors eot
Clurcl,-ccnsnrcB.
Thus. while, OIL the otl,cr side Of tho ocoan,
an nctrlaf, as well as an idenl. conflict is ringing
IL
arc quito scrot.a. We arc not of opinion that
taoro is much Significance in tho whole Affair."
taking it quito III pickwickan Ronsc. We aro
worry much like tho mau whom deacon ro-
proved for swearing: '..peacoa,' said ho: 'yoa
pray good deal, md ! Bwcar a good deai.
Neither OF us means much by it." We aro trust
lug .bAt that genial old gentleman, tue popo,
don't moan much ty oil bis docroos and fulmll,a-
tons,
CHICAGO, Dec. 1, 1874.
Tho Bishop Of Rich uaond on tho Glad
atOil1-1lanilxng Controversy.
ST. pAEn1cg'a CA1HEpnA1,l
R1oHMoSp W., Nov. Is, 1874. !
To TIE Editor nf tt. Ncp rork Herald:
You ask mo what my viows are on the Glad-
atone~AIanning controversy, aud, though this
subject hns hocn ably discussed by tho Arch
bishop Of Baltimore, cannot refuso tn comply
with your courteous communication in tho worry
few moments at my disposal.
I Iattenaed each and all tho sessions at tho Ec-
umonicat Council in Rome bearing on the queB-
tion Of papal infallibility. To tho best of my
recollection there were twonty-i1yo sessions de-
voted to the infalbity subject, at which 1876 pre-
1ntes spoke, besides LOO other Bishops who de-
ctined to speak in public, but tatldel in heir
written observations.
While somo Of the apeakera were oppoaed to
the definition rs boing, in their estimation, inex-
pcdieut or unnecessary, not ono OF the Bishops
resisted the definition On the ground that It
would in tho slightest degree altor the relations
existing between tic temporal md spiritual
power.
Whatever 3tr. Glalstoue nay say to the cou-
traty the very wording Of Tho delinition strictly
| contiuoa tho Papal protogatiyo TO faith and
mora!a. Tho popo docs not wiold In 1871 enc
| }ot mora power than ha did In 1774 aud III lot.
| III every Ige Of tho Churca ho haB exercised tho
prorogatiYo Of iufallibIlty. Pope Innocent I.
exarctzea it In the fifth century, liz condomning
| tue PoIaglnl, horasy. nnd SO did Gregory NJ. iu
tho fourteenth century, and innocent X in the
| seventeenth, ana the present Poutih III 1864,
when no deiinea tho dogma Of tho Immaculate
Conception.
JIonco the Council OF the Vatican, In 11tonul-
eating in 1870 the Pope'a infaIllpility, lid not
create new doctrine, hut confirmed nu old one.
III ptoc!amng this dogma, tho Council gives tho
sanction OF q law to principle always existing
4 "
may illustrate this By referring to onr El-
promo Court at Washington. Whan it decides d
constitutional question: ita decislon, though bm-
bodying now iorm OF words, cannot bo called q
| new doctrine, becauso the Judgment n baHed on
| the letter aud apiris ot tie Constitution. So,
4 when tue Church issues q Dew dogma Of faith,
| that decreo Ia nuthlnS moro than new form OF
expressing ali old doctrine, GocauHo tho declsion
| lnlst he dlaSn from tAo revealed word OF God.
und based upon tho constant tradition Of tho
| Church.
The conrao pursued by the Church regarding
papal iulaliblllly WA practicod by lor i l,50o
| years ago In rOforouce to the divinity Of jesus
| Christ. Our Savior waH acknowledged to bN
God iron, tho beginning OF tho Church. Yet
Ills divinity TaB not formally 1ofued till tho
Council Of Nice. IN tho, fourth century; md il
| would not llayo been de!uel tLcn, had it not
been dauied by A,lus. Nor would she have de-
iiuod the iMfa!llbity OF petor's snccesaur iu
| 1870, It that truth had not boon called In quoa'
tion by 1nodorn lallicans
As tl,o Council Of Mica added nothing to the
Vatican add anything to tho pretosasives Of the
Pope. -,
Buftcr any detrimont from tho Catlol.o Church
wo oan appeal with conidenco 10 tho past, CO.
poctally to tho history OF our own coaItry. =,
Yho saue spirit still auiMates aud Always vii
animate tho Catholic Church that dictated tht
memorable decreo which WIS PASSED. by tho dan
Of III Assembly Of Catholics (Ma.yland0 III 1Gi9
mo porsou whatsoever within this rro2lpce,
protesting to bo!,eyo iu JoAua ChrHt shall frou
hanoarorth bo anywaya troubled or nioleste
thereof, or any Way compelled to tue belief o
oxyrclue Of any other rollgion agaInst bis or hol
GonRank."
Thoy love a cat,se best who auifor for 1t most
Wo have suffered too much In the sacrod canat
OF libnsty to rAiHe our haudH against it. It III io
1;1thrtp Tint fha niAt,nt