DISPUTES ABOUT PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4336, 11 February 1875, Page 3

DISPUTES ABOUT PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.

Sin, —The quotations you have made Lately from the English papers justify me in putting and answering the following question : —Are English Catholics divided on the subject of infallibility? This is my reply:—As long as doctrines arc not defined by the Church, they are left to free discussion. Then, divisions take place, yet without breach of unity, because on all sides the golden rule of the Catholic unity is adhered to, viz., submission to the past and future decisions of the Church. "When the Church has spoken clearly and loudly on a point of doctrine, no division of Catholics is possible, because the dissenting or rebels arc ips* facto excommunicated. Let this bo illustrated by an example taken from the primitive history of the Church. In the beginning of the fourth century, the Church having os yet given no decision on the divinity, perfect equality and consubstantiality of the Son of God with the eternal Father, men through ignorance, pride, or malice, could deny this truth, and yet remain within the pale of the Church. However, in the year 325 there was at Nice a general council of the Church. In that holy assembly the divine attributes of the second person of the Blessed Trinity were defined against the a ectators of Arius. From that moment, the Arians ceased to be Catholics, and retained simply the name of Arians. So in our day, after the solemn decision of the holy Council of Vatican, the opponents of Papal infallibility, previously tolerated, must now submit, otherwise they are no longer Catholics, and they form a new heresy under the denomination of “Old Catholics” or PbUingcritcs, from the name of their leader. ~ ,

Therefore, to say now that Catholics arc divided on the subject of papal infallibility is quite preposterous, and could not be accounted for but for the state of mental confusion of the sects placed without the ancient Church, and their total want of rule of unity. Mr. Gladstone, who has made all that noise by his celebrated pamphlet, is lamentably untrue —illogical on the question of Catholic loyalty to temporal sovereignty, and has called for severe and well-merited rebukes on the part of clergy and bishops, and clear and loud declarations from the Catholic body, nobility, and people. Thus did the following resolutions pass in a meeting of the “ Catholic Union “1. The Catholics of Great Britain submit unreservedly to the definition of the Council of Vatican on the Pope’s infallibility. “2. That decision makes no change in their allegiance to civil authority. '*3. Lords Acton and Camoys and Mr. Henry Pelre (a gentleman quite different from the Hon. H. W. Petre, well-known in this colony), have no mission to speak for Catholics. “4. The above resolutions must receive publicity through the country. , "Loud Petre, President ” Let me conclude by remarks on Mr. Gladstone himself. Should his name give more authority to his assertions on the point at issue ? Certainly not. Mr. Gladstone is a statesman, a politician, not a theologian; and as far as X can judge from his statements and reasonings, he is not even a commonly’ instructed Christian. Therefore, he plays a most ridiculous personage in descending from the tribune and ascending the pulpit, and there delivering oracles, no doubt with consciousness of self-infallibility, on the sense of the Syllabus, on the meaning of infallibility, on its consequence in regard to this doctrine. Ah 1 he knows, at least he should know well, that Catholics are loyal to death. He knows well that the Catholic Church teaches and enforces fidelity to temporal powers. Have not the British Government applied several times lu our days to the Holy See, to obtain from it a condemnation of societies thought to be dangerous to the peace of the British Empire. I will go further, and will say that Mr. Gladstone is a singular example of self-contradiction. "We must be quite loyal to governing powers. That is his preaching. How did he act ? Some fifteen years ago, he encouraged and sided openly with the disloyal subjects of the Italian Princes ; he gave to revolutionists all the support of his talents, of his position in Parliament and Government. The grossest accusations were levelled by him against the Duke of Modena. The Marquis of Normanby, who had been the representative of the British Government in Central Italy, had more facility than any other to test the truth of those accusations. In the House of Lords—(see the British journals of July, 1801) —that nobleman flatly contradicted them, and proved them to be false. Nevertheless, Mr. Gladstone would make no retractation. He also, taking part against the King of Naples, defended and tried to excite the pity of the public for a pretended victim of the Neapolitan tyranny, a tortured captive, a certain Poerio, who in reality had not been in prison at all, and of whom Signor Petruccelli Della Patena said in the Italian Parliament: “It is time for us to have done with - these stories about Poerio. They are a conventional invention of the Anglo-French Press.” No doubt Mr. Gladstone is a most loyal citizen. Yet we suppose that his allegiance has one limit, that of conscience. The Catholics profess to have the same limit, but their conscience is not ruled only by private judgment—it is guided by a divine and living authority, the Church. And when that Church declares that legislation such as former British Anti-Catholic legislation is contrary to the law of God, then the Catholics must repeat non licet, nonpossumus— they must prepare for martyrdom.—l have, &c., A Catholic.