THE INFALLIBILITY DOGMA.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume V, Issue 223, 21 September 1870, Page 2

THE INFALLIBILITY DOGMA.

To the Editor op the Nelson Evening Mail. J Sir. — It is a great pity that, in your J issue of yesterday, you did not end your ! last paragraph on the dogma of iufallibility * by the word Punch, your readers then l would have understood the bearing ! of the article. But, as it is, one is * surprised that you relate with much f seriousness and gravity that " the solidity : and indefectibility of the true and real jj infallible chair of Blessed Peter " seem to depend upon Eugenie's ships, or per- [ haps on Napoleon's mitrailleurs; as if the ' Pope was in need of any human arm to £ support his authority or infallibility. You ( can, -with an overwhelming number of } troop 3 affect the power and authority of Kings aud Emperors, but all your iron- ' clads, chassepots, or needle-guns will never , affect the truth or infallibity of the chair of St. Peter, You may turn the Pope ( out of Eome — send him to England, to * Malta, or Jerusalem, but he will carry j with him truth, infallibility and authority from whatever place he may inhabit. Even l from a dungeon he will send his despatches I to his subjects in all the world, and he . will be listened to and obeyed, and his ■ orders will have full force; you may kill him, but you will never extinguish his authority. Peter, like his master, was crucified; he died, but his authority did not die with him; the truth of his chair passed to his successors, even to Pio Nono, / aud it will continue to be so, according to divine promise, to the cud of time. The extract from the New York Herald informs your readers that Archbishop ' Purcell and many of the Bishops presented to the Pope a supplication, to the effect that the question of the infallibility, as a dogma of faith might not be proposed at the Vatican Council; and the first reason ? was that " the discussion of the question would evidently show a want of union < and especially of unanimity amongst the bishops," This was the opinioa of the , prelate and a few of the bishops; they did not contest the dogma itself, but the opportuneness of its proclamation. And what, after all, would this tell ? Were they not meeting in Council for the purpose of discussing, of giving or receiving - information upon certain subjects ? Were they not at liberty to express their opinions 1 before a decision might be given ? For - they were meeting, not as the general conference which is about to take place in New I York amongst Protestants, " not to define ■ and decide" as you say, but to agree on principles of union and on united action. So, the Bishops at Rome met with full liberty of discussing and expressing their opinions, as Archbishop Purcell and other bishops had the right to do. And I hope that the few Protestant Theologians who are to meet " not to define and decide," will, agreeing amongst themselves, at least, retire from their conference as the ( numerous Catholic bishops from the OEcumeuical Council, beiug one with their head, having one mind as they have but one faith. I am, &c, Catholicus. Nelson, Sept, 20, 1870.