The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-01-23
ssovSsvSSvSrSS~Ss'
The "Layman'
in the Open

plays in his reply to my article i
Mondays Advertiser; and I shall ais
endeavor to be somewhat moderate, S
far as consistent with the presentation
of my points in this controversy.
Secondly, 1 must thank him for hi
Don Quixote, Cervantes' immortal hero
L have to acknowledge the aptness O.
the smile, particularly in the denoue
| ment of that episode of the windmill
where the redoubtable Don was nearly
killed by the grinding wings of thai
| engine, to which in my turn 1 sinai
liken the Catholic Church entire, moi
a solitary dogma alone. For, as
| showed by quotations from history, the
| Church is in the habit of destroying
| those who differ from it's precepts. and
destruction would inevitably be my lot
| IL we were still in the middle ages. AT
present 1 stand a chance of escaping
with my life-like the Don-but, as
Cervantes probably would say, If he
were still alive, "Quien sabe,'' who
knows
In my article of Monday I did not
attack the claim of infallibility alone,
although that point is the only one
contested by Father Beissel. I did,
however, in addition, challenge his own
words, from its fruits learn the tree"
and showed a few samples from the
Catholic fruitstand. exposed by his
tory, and undisputed history at that.
But Father Beissel will explain those
things later-he says.
However. let US revert to the infal-
libility.
No amount of explanations can re-
move the fact that the Pope, Of his
own accord, in a bull framed presuma-
bly, by himself, signed by his name,
and adorned with the papal seal, de-
clared himself infallible, no more nor
less.
No amount of explanation can re-
move the fact that this dogma had been
suppressed since the time of the refor-
nation.
No amount of explanation can re-
move the fact that it was again re-
yived and promulgated in bull of
comparatively recent date.
From this follows:
First-That there was a period before
the first PRONUNCIATION during which the
Pope was not infallible; or, perhaps,
he might have been infallible and
n 6nd
Second-That there followed a period
of infallibility. Cat that time the in
fallibility was absolute, even in tenn
poral affairs, and included also inn
peccability, or inability to sin, Father
Beissel to the contrary notwithstand-
ing)
Third-That this period of immunity
from sin or error was followed by an
other period of nearly 500 years, during
which time this dogma was not en-
forced. During this time the Pope
might or might not have known HIM
self to be infallible; but apparently he
did not care a hang whether anybody
else knew it or not. The fact is, 1t
would have been very impolitic to in
sist on the Pope's sinlessness, partic-
ularly in the face of certain acts of
Paul Ill, Alexander ~, and other
popes of the same stamp of Holiness"
who disgraced the papal throne and
tiara, and whose pretensions, excesseS
and crimes gave rise to the reforma-
ton.
Fourth-That this dogma is again a
dogma, revived in recent times.
In Father Beissel's brilliantly clear
of the meaning of the word
dogma in his article of Tuesdays
issue, he says: such statement made
by the Pope in the affirmative is called
a dogma of the Church. 1t does not
mean a new truth, but means that the
said point is contained in Holy Scrip
ture, and that it has been believed in
the past generally, but not so clearly
and expressly that there have not been
heard solitary voices expressing in their
own private judgment doubts about IT
or affirming the contrary. Now that
this matter has been officially exam
ined and pronounced by the highest
tee ching office of the Church to be true,
Il is a dogma to be believed (and be-
longs no longer to the domain of con-
among the members of the
under penalty of excommuni-
cation
Now, then, the first bull of infalli- |
bility must have been a dogma at the
time of its PRONUNCIATION; it ceased to
be SO later, as proved by the fact that
it had to be again published in a new |
bull; and it is now again in force as
a fullhedged dogma.
AS, also the Pope claims in his in
fallibility to be guided personally by
the Holy Ghost in all things relating |
TO the faith, 1 ask:
Was it the Holy Ghost, or was it the |
infallible Pope who did all those SOM |
ersaults? 1t appears that the infal- |
libility is truly, as Father Beissel says. |
mot a teasing machine; but it seems |
to me to be a pretty respectable wind |
mill in it's gyrations. |
However, where in Holy Writ is del
clared the infallibility of the Pope? of
Saint Peter? or even of Christ Him |
self? See st. John W, 80 and 81: 81
can of mine own self do nothing: as 1
hear, / judge: and my judgment is
Just; because 1 seek not my own will,
but the will of the Father which hath
sent me-; IF / bear witness of my
self, my witness is not true"
How about the witness the popes