INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 14, 23 October 1871, Page 3

INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE.

To the Editor of TIIE THAMES GUARDIAN. Sir, —Your correspondent who signs himself “ A Catholic,” is fairly entitled to an answer, and I’gladlygive itto him. I take up his points seriatim. Ist. After the question of defining the dogma of the Pope’s infallibility had been under debate for nearly six weeks, ithaveing by that time become abundantly evident that each succeeding orator was doing little more than reproducing arguments already advanced, a “regulation” was made to the effect that, at the written suggestion of at least ten Bishops, it might he put to the vote of the Council whether the subject had not been sufficiently discussed. That is a fact. It is a further fact, however, that no such written request was ever presented to the Council. 2nd. Felix of Orleans said and wrote, no doubt, some bitter things in the course of his controversy, but he never “ denounced the assemblage,” as is asserted by your correspondent, and the only speech lie made during the debate, was admitted, even by his admirers, to he a signal failure, faulty alike in style, substance and delivery. 3rd. The Bishop of Bosnia, to whose earnest but empty declamation such undue importance is attached, spoke, I admit, very violently, against theproposed dogma, and >et experienced not the least interruption as long as he kept within the record ; but liis zeal having carried him into extraneous topics, lie was, of course, called to order by the President, as is ocasionally done in the foremost and freest deliberative assembly in the world. 4th. If any Bishop had to “ sign a renunciation of liis speech,” (a circumstance of which I had not heard before to-day), he must have enunciated therein some unorthodox proposition already condemned by the Church ; but I will answer for it, no Bishop had to retract a speech uttered in the Council against the main question at issue, the Infallibility of the Romau Pontiff.

sth. It is utterly and absolutely false that the Bishop of Savannah declared the dogma to bo “ sacriligious,” (a form of expression at once barbarous aud offensive), and the “ powerful utterances” of Bishop Maret, just met with the reception which they deserved. 6th. For the rest, when I said that the Council was “free as the winds of Heaven,” I meant as regards external or Court influence, and surely did not intend to say or to insinuate, that the overwhelming majority of the Bishops did not occasionally interrupt the impetuous oratory of their dissenting brethren. —I am, &c., T. IV. Croke, D.D. The Presbytery, Shortlaud, Oct. 20.