Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-07-05

dcgmatio assertion of the cardinal what, under Dis
pen is intended to strike Cathohcs a. ,s an
absurd and impossible consequence. NV
methodist friend. to watch MIR. Smiths quotaions.
Mr. Smith cncludes his unparalleled 9oo'at tp;s
from Bellarmine: 81 commend . rarI
choice bit of literature to the careful aud
Consideration of Bi.hop Ireland" My thanks Mr;
smith for calling my especial notice to his dsat Oh
arms 1t is choice bit Of literature. VIII pre-
serve it carefully, and trust his usuai sunuay Lieu"
ers will be equally apprecative a..
| NV explanation Of the word eI-cdthed'a. the
condition upon which papal pronouncements are
infallbe, annoys Mr. Smith 1t ena' LED me 10 snow
which The brought amount to NOM.
ing. He asks ratser pettishy why. Ut the popeas
have an infaible chair they do not always Keep IN IT.
Well suppose, being men as well popes, tney ut
move around in the world occasionally This TACT
need not trouble Mr. Smith. II lie were 10 Decolne
a Catholic he would be asked t. mind The Pooe only
when the latter speaks en-cdthedfa. bo. ne 0on
tinues "Blshop Ireland's opinion about the mean
| ing of The word is not the opinion OF the Roman
| church This phrase has never been oe-
aned" am sure the decree OF the vaucan cou,i-
| cl de inpg infallibt,, explains quite snhclenIiy
for practical purposes the meaning OF tne wore.
| / h. d said that the pope infalhbe wheh me
has the intention to obge the chur' h. Inereupon
Wa ara tod, we can new Knew .m n1
decide when the pope is inf nib'e. I should think
the pope can make his intention known to us. II ne
does not then and then only, does Smiths SUPPOSE
ton hold It would occupy too mmcn ilme W run az,
over other qubblings; they are 81 on par ~l.n
these 1 have quoted aud yon VIII see tnfoneh tnei
the moment you have read Them
Mr. Smith devotes large part OF MS la't iec'ufe
| to objections against
| THE SUPREMACY OF PETER;
hits is new subject brought into the discussion, ana
do not propose to follow him through 1t. VIII maze
but one or two brief observations. MIR. Smith quotes
with manifest approval, the pamphlet of Archoisnop
Kolrick, of st Louis, written in Rome during tue
vatican council. Mr.. Smith should state the in.en-
ton of this and othe pamphlets OF the kind written
at the time in Rome council is dehberatlve as,
semb'y and the reasons for and against proposed
decree freely stated and discussed. Inc cues.
ton came before the fathers twas 1t Oppotuue TO
define papa nfallibility?" The reasons against tue
opportunl ness of the definition were in great part
the aversion which nom Catholics might have To-
wards the dogma. It is wrong, srgued the 1noppo1-
tunist bishops to give needless ofeps, aud III sup
port of their thesis they pressed forward all n' oo
iections made by mont athoc Writ rs e
doctrine, Without, OF course ever pretending TO nave
the objections considered their own, No author
ity whatever adheres to the archbishops pamphlet
az calm and posi- i've statement of Catholic teach
ing. or even of his own individual opinions.
Mr. Smiths Interpretation of the words OF our
Lord to Peter reported in Matthew XVI, should be
noticed ''The name of Peter, Petros, slgnihts'"
he VS. sa stone" but for the rock Je.us uses the
rd.L
terms EMPLOYED it is lear that the Peros addressed
was not the Petra upon which Christ was to fonnd
his church. Mr. Smith Is apparently not aware OF
the fact that our Lord spoke the syro Cnalaesn Ia
which language the two words are Identical,
"kphs On all the oriental versions of the bibis
the identity of the two worde is N iintained' Inc
Greek translator of st Matthew's gospei was ieu 10
write pettos in the first instance whore the Word Is
applied to the apostle, adopting the ascuiine forn
the more common Greek word for rock b-lng Petra,
of the feminine gender The literal meaning OF
! and Ia
roct W IL build my church. Thera is No posi-
BILE room left, especially when we consider the force
of the demonstrtive "tbi for the supposition that
another rock wss intended in til, seconi clause:
in the first cause is rightly marked by the
authors OF the revised VERSION ut John L. " AZ,
where Chri cha ges The rans or tue apostis 10
rock. "Thou ars Simon the 81 N of John: tn u
shalt be callad Cepha4 (Which Ia interpreted
Peter" In a note the reviee,s add: hat Is,
rock CT stoue." The change of Simpn's name to
Cephas by our Lord is a most Significant
fact and assists in bringing ont more for IDLY tue
identity of the words in the address of Our Lord
made to hin afterwards, when he was constituted
the foundation-stone of the church. Even the
mo, ed Protestant common ators have mainta the
identity of the words. B field, au Anglican,
observes that every modern expusltor Of note mas
aoa doned the dsticton be ween eter a. rock as
uutenab @. Rosepmuller, German lnfefp eter
saws: 'The Lord pea; ing i'll Syriac used no d.
versity of name, but in both places sal Ceihas
The rock is neither the confession OF Peter, nor
Glasgow writes: 'Protestants have betrayed un-
necessary fears, and have used all ths hardiho'
of lawless criticism 10 their attempts to reason
away the Catholic Interpretation The fathers al
vays gave us the do2matc and traditional inierpre-
taiion of the passage that the church was built up
on st. Pet At times they added moral con-
sderations to their Interpretation of the text or
gave of it secondary and less lit raj Citations
10 the effect that Simon's faith 1t was that
desc we'd the houor. and that the Urinary corner
stone of the church was Necessarily Christ hlm-
lob, rbc is InI N pY-
clude or deny the literal and dogmatic meaning
that Peter became the foundation stone OF the visl-
ole church.
to limit to the circumstances If Peters fall the
words in Luke: 81 We prayed for thee that thy
faith fail not, and thou being oDca converted
confirm thy brethren, the meaning OF inc Greek,
"DOte epiStrephds," being not, converted in the
sense of return from civ, but. / thy turn, or being
Turned towards them the learned Grotius and 9TH
er Protestant scholars maintain.
Mr. Smiths assertion that in the Acts there IS no
trace of Peters auth rity that our Lord never indi-
Gated his superiority the o.hrr apostles that no
slgns of ap cared in asrly Christianity are ms own
wild aud unfouud-d sayings, which, if time allowed
me- would chow to be simply contrary to the plain
ct hist -ical evidences.
Mr. Smiths conclusion Is in keeping with the
whole lecture He up all that he said against the
church, without an allus' on having been made
to the specific answers had given to each and every
ore of his charge, and then, with triumphant wave
of the baud, or the church TO stand aide He
accords word Of sympathy to myself: Blsaop
Ireland provoked tni partial disclosure.
If be DOES not like it let bin be more considerae in
the future ~ l assure Mr.. Smith have no dislike
whatever for bis d,scourses; they do much good to
the cause of truh aud III this view will be quite
satisfied to have him renew his attack whenever it
will please hum to do so.
As to the results of the controversy upon those
who have heard or Rad thu discourses, leave the
matter to God It il my duty minister of tn 9
gospel to preach the W ,rd sin season and out of
season L havs sought to do my duty, and trust
nofh olipc hava haa.. mad
Protestauts brought TO sec that the church is not
without her solid Defense and that the preudces OF
the Protestant worl, sgaibst her are grounded on
INTERPRETATIONS of her doctrines and her history