The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1910-04-16
PapaI InfaIlibiIity Again.

Although It's pros and cons have been,
within the past forty years, thoroughly
thrashed out, the infallibility of the
Pope is still apparently live question
among some of our Anglican brethren.
The Austral Light of Melbourne dis
cuSseS in a recent issue a book by the
Rev. w. S. Simpson (Anglican)-'Ro-
man Catholic Opposition to Papal In
fallibility"-in which the author at
tempts the somewhat colossal task of
showing that the doctrine of the in
fallibility of the Roman POntiff is a
tyranny laid on the conscience of Cath
olics, and a falsehood definitely and
convincingly cOntradicted by historical
facts The main defect of the author
is his utterly unWarrantable assumption
that, because some Catholics at first
opposed and then accepted the defini-
ton, they must have acted against their
conscience and subscribed to what they
knew to be false, This is nonsense. The
Catholic knows his own judgment to
be fallible, and the church's Judgment
to be infallible. The infallible church
of the living God declared the Pope,
Christs Vicar, infallible when speaking
eX-cathedra, and that sufficed for the
genuine Catholic.
We are not particularly interested in
arguments, which have been refuted
times without number; but we think
it worth while to quote the judiciOus
statement with which our Australian
contemporary concludes it's discussion
of his very shallow book:
What does it matter, we may ask
again, if a few Catholics found the
doctrine difficult, and lesser number
still refused to accept it, and if they
said sharp and bitter things about the
council? Is truth more likely to be
found with the few doubters and the
few scoffers than with the oVerwhelm-
ing majority of the bishops of the
church, and in the almost universal
consensus of Catholic opinion? We
take our doctrine from the church, not
from individuals, whether they be few
or many, learned or foolish.
1T is fashion of some, who them
selves would never have submitted to
the Pope even minus his declared in
fallibility to pretend that the defini-
ton has been a stumbling block to
Protestants who might otherwise have
gone over to Catholicism. That we do
not credit. The mind logical enough to
appreciate the Catholic position will not
be repealed, but attracted, by the doc
trine of PaDal Ipfallibility, which is,
DIS we nave ooliUJ d lOS lCCtl ilGCtSolIy VI
that position The authority on which
an earnest seeker of truth would ac-
cept the church must in the nature of
the case, cover all the doctrines of the
church. The pretense is lame also on
its other foot. For the doctrine of in
fallibiiity, before being declared, was
implicitly believed, and was really a
truth of faith, though not defined. 1t
would not be right or lawful to hold
up to the inquiring non-Catholic a
Catholicism from which any of it's doc
trines had been suppressed or hidden
away. If he can not accept Papal in
fallfbility, he can not accept the church,
and nothing whatever would De gained,
while much would be lost, by bringing
him into the church on false pretenses."
Anglicans should be the last of people
to oppose infallibity; for their historic
record emphasizes the basic weakness
of a religious system IN which a court
of last resort, an infallible one, is want
ing In the meantime. it is badly nee
essary to say, Catholics are not groan-
ing very painfully beneath the tyr
amy" on which Mr.. Simpson COM
ments.-Ave Maria.