Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-06-20

want of servants, and said whoever claimed
t the title OF universal bishop, was anti -Chiist
a Gregory rebuked arrogance and presumption
: and surely in private letter of rebuke to q
t bishop, he taught nothing ex cathedra.
+ Second-"Innocent l. and Gelacius I. de-
;. clared it to be Indispensable to infants to re-
e ceive communion, while the Council of Trent
S has mathematical the doctrine.'' Innocent
5 and Gelasius in their letters prove that bap
tism is indispensable to infants, and make only
incidental allusion to the eucharist, for the re
l ception OF which by Christians baptism was
E preliminary condition, and concerning which
Q furthermore their doctrine is perfectly ortho.
1 dox.
Third-The Council of Constantinople con.
demned, in the year $50, Pope Honorius as
, hereto. The objection to have any value
, should show that Honorius was condemned
orthodox or heretical, was private letter to
the Bishop of Constantinople, in which Homo
, rius positively says, that he does not wish to
Q define anything.
The church does not teach that a pope as a
private individual may not fall into heresy.
As it was, the letter of Honorius contains no
/ heresy, as whoever carefully reads it will see.
t 1t was, however, an unfortunate letter, because
, Honorius, misled by the Patriarch Sergius,
J and not having taken pains to be informed
fully of the condition of things in the East,
advised in it peace and the cessation of dispute,
thereby allowing error to propagate itself in
the patriarchate. Because of his neglect to in
vestigate the case, and to teach the truth, was
HonOrius condemned, as Pope Leo II. posi-
lively states in his approval of the council
"We anathematize the inventors of the new
error, nay, and Honorius also,
who did not labor to preserve in purity the
apostolic church by the teaching of apostolic
tradition, but permitted the apostles to be
polluted by popular3 betrayal" "But if the
J,
else his infallible privilege, of what use is the
infallibility ?" Of much use, when he does
exercise it, and this is all we are contending
for.
Fourth-"Pelagius held that baptism must
be in the name of the Trinity, but Nicolas I.
assured the Bulgarians that baptism in the
name of Christ was sufficient" Nicolas
writes to some Bulgarians a private letter,
which no one ever dreamt to be ex cathedra
and in 1t he incidentally quotes an opinion of st.
Ambrose upon baptism, which without being
general among theologans, has never been
condemned as heretical.
Fifth-"Jehn XXI. charged Clement V.
with heresy in regard to the Franciscans.
| John XXI. did no such thing, nor is there
any real difference between the teaching of
the two popes.
SixtL-"The council of Constance decreed
that the pope is inferior to the bishops in
in councils The council of Constance IN
| its first sessions was not legitimate coun-
| Gil, as no legitimate pope presided over it.
This council was held towards the close of
what is called the great schism, when there
were unfortunately three claimants of the
chair of Peter. 1t actually in its first ses-
sions did issue the decree to which Mr.. Smith
| alludes. But he is mistaken when he adds
that it put the decree in practice, ''by deposing
John and Benedict, and compelling Gregory to
resign" Gregory, the legitimate pope, re-
signed voluntarily, and did not
.abdicate by submitting to forced resignation
the supremacy of his office. Martin V. was
then elected, and through his presidency the
council was legalized and the DEGREES of the
council which he confirmed were, as he plainly
stated, only those which had been enacted
'comciliariter" in council form. Mr.. Smith
strangely quotes the correct meaning of
Martins words: "Thus he approves and rati-
fies the things done in full assembly. and not
otherwise and elsewhere" and despite this
clear declaration adds "Here, by councils
decree, and pope's approval, tie dogma of
infallbility breaks down beyond the hope of
recovery" Singular logic!
Seventh-"There were bad popes." Suppos-
ing that popes were as bad as Mr.. Smith makes
them out to be, and even worse, what has their
private conduct to do with their official teach
ing? Mr.. Smith quotes passage of scripture,
that "WlsdOm does not dwell with sin, as if
the passage had the most remote reference to
divinely appointed office, to which man IS
raised irrespectively of his status as sinner or
saint. Mr.. Smith piously reads to his con-
gregation the inspired words of David and
Solomon. Were they always saints? He will
have to reduce yet more than he has done his
list of inspired writer's, if he maintains his
present doctrine.
"The dogma of papal infallibility is mod
ern invention, not only upon Christianity, but
)on Romanism ITSELF"
A serious charge, surely, which, if sus-
tIined, at once undermines dogma and church.
How is the charge proved? By long and
numerous quotations from Irish, English and
American bishops and priests asserting, be-
fore the vatican council was held, that papal
infallibility was no article of Catholic faith.
This much they did really assert, and nothing
more, and we all assert, that before the last
council it was no article of feith. Mr.. Smith
devotes nearly whole lecture to quotations
| from these bishops and priests-a loss of time
and labor Then with great flourish of
| trumpets he wants to know, whether they
told the truth, or whether they lied. Mr.,
Smith chooses emphatic words. '1f they lied,
it will never do" he explains, "to trust bish-
ops, especially Irish bishops" l am glad
they did not lie: they told the truth, what
then? "Then the dogma of infallibility is a
new and false doctrine Judged even by Catholic
| testimony" Why, not at all. A few lines
later on, Mr. Smith answers most correctly his
own objection. "The argument" he says,
''does not rest at all upon the statements that
it had no authoritative promulgation until the
vatican council, which would not establish
my conclusion, but that it had no place in
the traditional Roman system" As he only
alleges facts showing that the doctrine had no
authoritative promulgalion until the vatican
council, of his own admission, his objections
do not hold.
The doctrine of papal infallibility was al
ways and ever an integral part Of Catholic
teaching. Who runs may read in Catholic
history. 1t was first announced by the Savior
himself. "Thou art rock," said he to Peter,
''and on this rock 1 will build my church, and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Peter is the foundation stone of the church;
the rock through which she derives her
strength, and because of which the gates OF
hell shall not prevail against her. If the rock
moves unsteady the whole edifce crumbles
"Simon, behold satan hath desired to have you
lin the plural, the apostles) that he may sift
you as wheat But have prayed for thee
(Peter alone) that thy faith fail not, and thou
confirm thy brethren" Peters faith will not
fail, as it is his office to confirm his brethren.
Christ confirms the other apostles through
Peter. To Peter also was the charge given to
feed the whole flock, lambs and sheep, as the
fathers explain, people and bishops. Through
the earliest ages of church history the doctrine
was professed and acted upon. The fathers
asserted that Peters faith, for the enduring of
which Christ had prayed, lived in the bishop
of Rome. Rome was the center of unity, the
pope's teaching the standard of right faith.
"Where Peter is" wrote Ambrose, 'there is
the church." "Who gathereth not with Da-
masus " wrote Jerome from Alexandria, where
questions of faith agitated the public mind,
"scathereth, i.e., belongs not to Christ"
Rome settled finally all disputes.
"Rome has spoken, the cause is closed" ex-
claimed Augustine. Celestine, in the year
431, in sending his legates to the council of
Ephesus, tells them that they are to judge on
the opinions of the bishops, not to enter into
dispute with them. The bishops anathema-