Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-12-01
VOL. XVI. No. II.
IN that profession of faith which we have
uttered OF the opening of tbs council, ]

10 the unanimous decision Ci the fathers.
/ As however, lew instances Of such uuaai-
NIFTY are TO Re found. when doubt arises the
law IS TO follow the major number of The
eIGer Christian writers. of the word
rock IN this Passage five different inter-
pretdtlons have been give The hrs. de-
c.areS that the church was built on Peter,
and this Interpretation was accepted by
I seventeen fathers, among them OrIgeu. Cy-
pri-n, Jerome, Hilary. Augustine and
| others, The second declares that the
church was built on all the apostles this
OPINION being followed by eight. The third
.sSertS mat Il e word ''rccll'' Is to b. UNDER
stood Of the faith that Peter prutesSed this
Interpretation being the Wei-htitSt Of AL,
being followed by forty-ioUl' Gathers and
doc Ihs fourth Is that the rock was
SIrlS' -'u~-it. being held by sixteen
fathers. while The fifth understands by the
word ''rocS the faithful themselves tie
living stones of the church. From this Is
ioIoWS, eiiHrr that no argument Il Al or
one OF ne S-e'ldcr@St probability, : 10 %
derived rom the words on this rock wi.
bLlid my church, in support of The pr.-
macy. Unless il be certain that bv tho
rock is 10 be understood the Apostle Peter
N MS own person md not IL MS
capacity Is the chief apostle speak
ing Tor them all tie Won. supplies no
argument whatever. / do 10, say ~ PROOF
OF papal infaliibiity. but even in support Of
the primacy OF the bishop of Rome The
various Interpretations the archbishop re-
comedies by considering the oUb.r meaning;
OF the word foundation, - meaning not
only the first courses Of I building. bE- a.sO
the living rock on which they are placed
the natural foundation being Chris; aud ,us
:a.-a ne gave 20 the world. and the archl-
;erJural foundation the apostles who wer5
10 tH.h that faith throughout the world /.
In following this Interpretation tue arch-
bishop declares thar lie Is not greatly
moved by the accusation made BY tho
bishop OF flphln, VINO regretted that -'turrs
should be any among the bishops who
would take the tests OF holy scripture aud
other citations in proof o. papal iufil-i1..-
ItF, and interpret them IN the sense 49,
cepted BY hereticS." Nj answer 10 him
and others Is this: Following the example
of IrenauS Tertulliau. Augustine and YIN
,ent of i-erina believe that the proofs Il
the Catholic faith are 10 be sought rather
III tradition than in the Interpretation OF
the scriptures"
CLINCHING TIE AEGUMEN~.
After defending the position taken by his
late brother, archbishop of Baltimore,
whose opinions rad been attacked IN tie
council, the archbishop closed his remarks
on this branch of the subject by quoting
passage from work written by his
brother: The ne Sonal fa.libility Of the
pope IN his pr ale capacity, writing or
81 eakiur. Is FIRE 'ly conceded by the most
ardent advocates of papal preroSatjvcs. but
his official ln1alliOiiIty Is strCugly affirmed
by many; while some, as the t'reurl as
sembly of 1862. contend that his Judgment
may admit of amendment 50 long "a, it -
not sustained by the assent and adhesion
OF the great body Of bishops Practically
there is no "oOm for difficulty, since all SOL
emn judgments heretofore pronounced by
the pOntiH have received the assent of his
colleagues, and in the contingency of new
definition it should be Presumed by the
faithful II large that it is CORE 7 as long IS
the body Of bishops do not -reGUus.ratg or
oppose it, But, proceeding further. tho
archbishop shows that in this case At least,
silence Is not to be taken is consent, is -
proved by The history of the opinion con-
corning the power once claimed 10y the RO-
mah pontiE against governments not sub
ieCt TO his jurisdiction. For four centuries
afler the bull imam Sanctam promulgated
in 1902, the opinion that the
authority of the pope was superior TO that
OF kings prevailed and was taught as u mat
ter of faith, even by the most learned thou-
lOgians, but at the present time the Opln-
ion SO solemnly enUnciated in that bull is
repudiated by all, not excepting even the
most ardent advocates of pdpdl lnfaIlibu-
ity," The tacit assent of the bishops, there
fore, for four centuries did not make this
opinion Il doctrine of the church, otherwise
the rejection of it now would be equivalent
\
lie church" The power of the pope III those
days had its origin in circum stances by the
cOnsert CT ChriStendOm. 1t was vested IN
the hopes, not because rs pOpeS they had
received it from Christ, but because there
was nU 81. SISe who could exercise IL at the
tlIne when the need for it arose. In ascrin-
ing it to the ordinance of God, the popcs
were labOring under something of .4urnIu
iuur..Iity, a fac, with which it would be uil-
just to reproach them. That it has now
allen into deSuetude is admitted by all
Few persons think of il as . thing possible
to be revived, though this may not be i'm
possible if the pope Is to De held iufailole.''
NOT A DOCTRINE OF FAITH.
In pursuing this line of argument. the
archbishop intmateS that when he iIApuguS
one papal bull he may be understood as de-
lying others also, and III particular the
bull, ''IneffabiliS Deus" by which the doc
trine of the immaculate conception was de-
fined. In reply 10 this possible accusation,
he declares: i admit that the blessed Eir-
6 IN Mary, through the singular favor OF
God, and in view of the merits Of her sou
Jesus Christ, was kept in her conception
from all guilt of Adams sin. do not deny
that the sentiment belongs to the deposit Of
faith; nevertheless, have never been able
To discover II therein. so Tar as that deposit
IS set forth In the scriptures or the writings
of the fathers: neither have | ever found
the man who could show it TO me there. y
Returning to the question Immediately uu-
der discussion. the archbishop declares that
the iufallibility Of the pope IS not question
of faith, and can not be propouuded as such
to the faithful, even by the definition of
Definitions are not indictments
to devotion, but authoritative eXpoSitiOuS
of doctrine. and never impose a new faith.
The infalibiEty of the pope IS not a doc
trine of faith lit IS not contained in tEs
symbols OF the faith; it is not presented IS
an article of faith in tine cate
chisms; it IS not found IS
such in any document of public worship
This being the case, the argument OF the
afiirmaIts falls 10 the ground, they claim
ing that the council merely defined what
was all along believed by the church. But
the argument continues: Not only has
not the church taught il in any public I'M.
strument, but has suffered it to be I'M
pugned. not everywhere. but with the pos
si5le exception of Italy, almost everywhere
in the world and that for long time" IL
proof of this bold assertion, numerous cita-
tons from the works OF standard authors
are given. Especially applicable is one
fr IN All English work approved by the
Vicar Apostolic Coppinger. i'll which
specific denial appears: 1t IS no matter
Of faith to believe that the pope is in him
self infallible, separated from the church,
even in expounding the faith" In COM
menting on this passage and others of SINH
lar tenor, the speaker shows how OdiOuS
the idea of the temporal supremacy of the
pope has always been IN England, and how
often and how specifically the English
Catholics had denied, under oath, the doc
trine of papal supremacy and infalIibility,
and asks how these denialS are to be recon-