The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1900-08-04
Germ "<7nfaNbLe. -
By Rev. DR.. Lambert in New York FreemanS Journal.


! there can be no disagreement between
true religion and ture science" Here
true religion" is carelessly made syn
onymous with the Bible, and made to
say that there can be no disagreement
between the Bible and science. Yet
the Holy Father distinctly declares on
ly that "NulIa quidem theologum inter
ct physicum vera dissensio intercesser-
it."
1t is this carelessness in serious
| questions which leads the venerable
Doctor to add the Holy Father to his
other cloud of witnesses" the two
ecclesiastcs and the professor. as say
/ ing that the Bible is 1.-The infaIibIe
Word Of Cod" and he adds: 1T should
! be noted that the Holy Father does
say that it is infalible
I truth" As a matter of fact, all that
the Pope says is that the writer's Of
| the origial manuscripts, "et fideHter
/ conscribere violent, ct apte infauibni
veritate experimerent." This would
not justify to predicate fnfantbiHty of
| the record.
| My high esteem for DR.. De Cocta and
/ his faithfulness to conscience makes it
painful indeed to utter any criticism
on his words. Nor is he the only one
who is using rhetoric who speaks Of
infallible writing. But surely it is
high time that we cease playing with
words; and the sad case of DR.. -lItvart
should lead US to read the EncyclicaI
with more deliberation.
Holm NJ PE,TN-u-E
Elizabeth, n. ].
Comment-We thing our esteemed
correspondent is somewhat hypercrit-
ical. We held. and still hold, that the
term 'infallibIe" cannot with technical
correctness be applied to the Bible con-
sidered simply as a written record. We
so hold because we believe that the BIZ
BILE is not the category Of things of
which infallibility can be affirmed. In
this sense there is no imputation that
the Bible is not inspired or is not alb
solutely true. The denial of infallibil-
ity to the Bible does not raise the ques-
ton as to it's inspiration or truthful
ness. Let US make this clear by Illus
tratiOn. If one should say a triangle
is white, we should not object to the
adjective as not practicable of that re-
latiOn of lines and angles called a tri-
angle. The triangle is not in the cat
egory of things of which Wilderness can
be affirmed. This illustration shows
that denial of infallibility to the BIZ
BILE is not based on any hypothesis taht
there may be textuaI or typographical
errors in it, but on the principle that
what was equally applicable to the
original manuscripts before the ink
used by the inspired and infallible
writer's was dry. That principle is,
that infallibility cannot be affirmed OF
written record of thought and events,
even of an inspired, and therefore alb
solutely true, record.
But DR.. De Costa explained the sense
in which he used the term, and that
sense is, in our judgment, correct and
Catholic. He said: THE infallible rec
ord does not lend itself to private judg-
ment. 1t has not the power to burn
its meaning into the bran and infallibly
fix the meaning of the words in the
mind" This makes it clear that he
does not affirm infallibility in any sense
which can justify the Protestant in ap-
pealing to it as an infallible teacher
while his private Judgment is the only
interpreter. That is certainly the Cath
Ollie position on the relation OF thesBi-
bic to the individual mind.
Modern Protestants began to use the
word infallble in reference to the Bible
for the purpose of setting up an anti
to the Catholic claim of an infalIible
Church. After three centuries of dis
cussion they saw the necessity of an in
fallible authority as to the meaning of
revealed propositions. And they at
trbuted to the Bible that infaIlibility
which they had denied to the Church.
and held that the Bible had the power
to convey to the mind it's true mean
ing. 1t is in this sense that they as
serted infallibility of the Bible; and it
is in precisely this sense that DR. De
Costa denies infaIlibility of the Book;
that is, that it can infallibly give it's
meaning to the private judgment of
the individual reader.
AS to the unfortunate DR.. Mivart, we
believe he understood perfectly the
meaning of the Encyclical, and that he
denied its teaching in the very sense
in which the Sovereign Pontif affirmed
it.
We think some of our correspondents
minor points are not well taken. They
have the appearance Of criticism for the
sake of criticism. For instance, he
notes the following words of DR.. De
Costa: 1.-The Church invites no conflict
between science and the Bible, know
ing well that there can be no disagree
ment between true religion and true
science" and comments thus: Here
true religion is carelessly made sy-
nonymous with the Bible. and made to
say that there can be no disagreement
between the Bible and science"
DR.. De Costa has left no doubt as to
his meaning of the word "BbIe,' that it
is the word of God only in the sense
and Interpretation of the infallible
Church. And in that evident sense our
correspondent as a good Catholic must
agree with the Doctor that there is no
conflict between the Bible and true
science. After a careful re-reading Of
his article, we are forced to our former
conclusion, that DR. De Costa has cor
rectly stated the Catholic attitude to-
ward the Holy Scriptures.