Fate of Eastern Catholic Churches if Orthodox are Reconciled

[ron77nyc]

It doesn’t teach error, period! Its Infallible in matters of Faith, but it seems like your trying to find error with it.

If at one time in Church history it was taught that only the baptized will be in heaven and unbaptized children will go to limbo where they will be deprived of the beatific vision then 12-18 centuries later the Church teaches there is no such thing as limbo, then someone made an error. No one was ever told it was a theological hypothesis until now. It’s not necessary to go into great detail. If two popes do not agree then one of them has to be wrong.

I’m not trying to find error. It’s staring me in the face.

 

[John_oxios]

If at one time in Church history it was taught that only the baptized will be in heaven and unbaptized children will go to limbo where they will be deprived of the beatific vision then 12-18 centuries later the Church teaches there is no such thing as limbo, then someone made an error. No one was ever told it was a theological hypothesis until now. It’s not necessary to go into great detail. If two popes do not agree then one of them has to be wrong.

I’m not trying to find error. It’s staring me in the face.

        It was not declared doctrine, or a dogma, its been discussed since probably biblical times... before the official stand on 'Original sin'  again what is a theological hypothesis?

Hypothesis is an idea which they try to prove… We can’t prove how God treats in His Divine Providence how he treats the innocent unbaptized infants. Hey, they talked about the ‘Immaculate Conception’ since biblical times, yet they couldn’t find an explanation for it till about the 18th century?

 

[sidbrown]

If at one time in Church history it was taught that only the baptized will be in heaven and unbaptized children will go to limbo where they will be deprived of the beatific vision then 12-18 centuries later the Church teaches there is no such thing as limbo, then someone made an error. No one was ever told it was a theological hypothesis until now. It’s not necessary to go into great detail. If two popes do not agree then one of them has to be wrong.

I’m not trying to find error. It’s staring me in the face.

I don;t think that anyone know exactly which are the infallible teachings of the RCC. Take for example, the ordination of women or the birth control issue. It is true that these teachings are authoritative and most theologians that I have read say that these teachings are infallible, but there are others who are in good standing and they disagree concerning their infallibility, but not with the fact that the present teaching is authoritative.

 

[ron77nyc]

It was not declared doctrine, or a dogma,…

The Church knew that but the average Catholic did not but that makes no difference. The Council of Trent held the parents responsible and called neglecting to do it a grave sin. It was not optional. No one ever said “by the way, this was never actually a dogma or doctrine.”

‘CATECHISM OF THE COUNSEL OF TRENT’

BAPTISM OF INFANTS SHOULD NOT BE DELAYED

The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children
be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to
receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of
salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those
persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament
longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to
be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

 

[ron77nyc]

I don;t think that anyone know exactly which are the infallible teachings of the RCC. Take for example, the ordination of women or the birth control issue. It is true that these teachings are authoritative and most theologians that I have read say that these teachings are infallible, but there are others who are in good standing and they disagree concerning their infallibility, but not with the fact that the present teaching is authoritative.

That’s right. Catholics are required to accept everything the Church teaches whether it’s dogma or doctrine, tradition or discipline, infallible or not infallible.

 

[ron77nyc]

It was not declared doctrine, or a dogma,…

According to this it was a doctrine.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*

1. The idea of Limbo, which the Church has used for many centuries to designate the destiny of infants who die without Baptism, has no clear foundation in revelation, even though it has long been used in traditional theological teaching. Moreover, the notion that infants who die without Baptism are deprived of the beatific vision, which has for so long been regarded as the common doctrine of the Church, gives rise to numerous pastoral problems, so much so that many pastors of souls have asked for a deeper reflection on the ways of salvation.

 

[mardukm]

According to this it was a doctrine.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED*

1. The idea of Limbo, which the Church has used for many centuries to designate the destiny of infants who die without Baptism, has no clear foundation in revelation, even though it has long been used in traditional theological teaching. Moreover, the notion that infants who die without Baptism are deprived of the beatific vision, which has for so long been regarded as the common doctrine of the Church, gives rise to numerous pastoral problems, so much so that many pastors of souls have asked for a deeper reflection on the ways of salvation.

The same document states: "In this summary we distinguish first, statements of faith and what pertains to the faith; second, common doctrine; and third, theological opinion."

Blessings

 

[ron77nyc]

The same document states: "In this summary we distinguish first, statements of faith and what pertains to the faith; second, common doctrine; and third, theological opinion."

Blessings

That’s in paragraph 34.

1. In the Church’s tradition, **the affirmation that children who died unbaptised are deprived of the beatific vision has for a long time been “common doctrine”. **This common doctrine followed upon a certain way of reconciling the received principles of revelation, but it did not possess the certitude of a statement of faith, or the same certitude as other affirmations whose rejection would entail the denial of a divinely revealed dogma or of a teaching proclaimed by a definitive act of the magisterium. The study of the history of the Church’s reflection on this subject shows that it is necessary to make distinctions. **In this summary we distinguish first, statements of faith and what pertains to the faith; second, common doctrine; and third, theological opinion. **

Here is the summary:

1. In summary: the affirmation that infants who die without Baptism suffer the privation of the beatific vision has long been the common doctrine of the Church, which must be distinguished from the faith of the Church. As for the theory that the privation of the beatific vision is their sole punishment, to the exclusion of any other pain, this is a theological opinion, despite its long acceptance in the West. The particular theological thesis concerning a “natural happiness” sometimes ascribed to these infants likewise constitutes a theological opinion.

The second paragraph says it’s a theory.

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned.

Is this confusing?

 

[JohnVIII]

My “theory” is that the subject of limbo is off topic. But “if the Orthodox are Reconciled” will either the Eastern Catholic or the Orthodox have to give up the more sane Orthodox teaching that unbaptized babies go to “The Bosom of Abraham”, in favor of limbo?

 

[John_oxios]

The Church knew that but the average Catholic did not but that makes no difference. The Council of Trent held the parents responsible and called neglecting to do it a grave sin. It was not optional. No one ever said “by the way, this was never actually a dogma or doctrine.”

Hi Ron77,
thanks for Trent statement, I’ll add it to my file.

Ron77,No one ever said’by the way, this was never actually a dogma or doctrine."

 

[John_oxios]

If at one time in Church history it was taught that only the baptized will be in heaven and unbaptized children will go to limbo where they will be deprived of the beatific vision then 12-18 centuries later the Church teaches there is no such thing as limbo, then someone made an error. No one was ever told it was a theological hypothesis until now. It’s not necessary to go into great detail. If two popes do not agree then one of them has to be wrong.

I’m not trying to find error. It’s staring me in the face.

Hey Ron,

         God did not give all the answers upfront... O.T., N.T. Church age  from Adam to present The Holy Spirit is still guiding and enlightening gradually, biblically it took about six thousand yrs. to Jesus, two thousand yrs after We waiting for His eminent return.

There are things of God that we can’t even imagine, i.e. God points to a glory greater:
1Cr 2:9 But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,”

1Cr 2:14 The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

I could go on…and on… on For me, I came back, when I didn’t want to come back, but I knew in my heart and mind, in my depths this RCC is the Church Jesus established
Even in the face of hard teaching the Disciples knew there is no other place to go:

Jhn 6:66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?”

68	Simon Peter answered him, **"Lord, to whom shall we go**? **You have the words of eternal life;**

For me, there is no place to go… and when you can come to that conclusion, well , who knows what obstacles you can remove.

“So Brother Matthew locked the gate behind me, and I was enclosed in the four walls of my new freedom.” (Thomas Merton)

On his way to Scotland the Pope was asked,

In his customary press conference aboard his Alitalia flight to Edinburgh this morning, Benedict was asked whether he hopes “to make the Church as an institution, more credible and attractive” in a country where secularism is becoming the standard. Benedict replied, “A Church that seeks to be particularly attractive is already on the wrong path.
The Church, he said, “does not work for her own ends, she does not work to increase numbers and thus power.”

As GK Chesterton has said: "I don’t want to go to a church that changes with the culture. I want a Church that changes the culture.

There is also a quote,
“The Church does not change for man, but changes because of the Church”
(author unknown)

God bless,
john

 

[John_oxios]

I don;t think that anyone know exactly which are the infallible teachings of the RCC. Take for example, the ordination of women or the birth control issue. It is true that these teachings are authoritative and most theologians that I have read say that these teachings are infallible, but there are others who are in good standing and they disagree concerning their infallibility, but not with the fact that the present teaching is authoritative.

Hi Sid,
enlighten me, exactly what type of Catholic Church do you profess to attend.

There will never be women priests in the Catholic Church, Men and women each have specific roles in God’s kingdom… it is those who are not happy within their roles that want to change them.

God bless,
John

 

[ron77nyc]

Hey Ron,

         God did not give all the answers upfront... O.T., N.T. Church age  from Adam to present The Holy Spirit is still guiding and enlightening gradually, biblically it took about six thousand yrs. to Jesus, two thousand yrs after We waiting for His eminent return.

There is a difference between an idea which never existed before and an old idea that is done away with. The first one is new; the second is an error.

 

[sidbrown]

Hi Sid,
enlighten me, exactly what type of Catholic Church do you profess to attend.

There will never be women priests in the Catholic Church, Men and women each have specific roles in God’s kingdom… it is those who are not happy within their roles that want to change them.

God bless,
John

I am in the Roman Catholic Church which is the same Church that Father Francis A. Sullivan belongs to. As you probably don’t know, Father Sullivan is the leading theological authority on the magisterium. He wrote: Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church (Paulist, 1983) and Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Church Documents (Paulist, spring 1996). According to Father Sullivan: "Canon law states that no doctrine is understood as infallibly defined unless this fact is clearly established (nisi id manifeste constiterit). Although canon 749.3 speaks only of doctrine that is infallibly defined, the same requirement would hold for the claim that a doctrine had been infallibly taught by the ordinary universal magisterium, since the consequences for the faithful are the same in either case.(FN16)

The question whether a doctrine has been infallibly taught is not a matter of doctrine, but a matter of fact, which has to be “manifestly established.” What must be “manifestly established,” when the claim is made that a doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, is that not only the pope, but the whole body of Catholic bishops as well, are proposing the same doctrine as one which the faithful are obliged to hold in a definitive way. I do not see how it could be said that a papal declaration, of itself, without further evidence, would suffice to establish this fact."
“The history of Catholic doctrine suggests the need of great caution in claiming that something has been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, if there is reason to judge that a position on which there was a consensus in the past no longer enjoys such a consensus. In such a case, it would be wise to put off any peremptory declaration until it becomes clear whether a question has been raised that obliges the Church to look at an old problem in a new light and perhaps come up with a better answer to it.”
See:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_A._Sullivan

 

[John_oxios]

There is a difference between an idea which never existed before and an old idea that is done away with. The first one is new; the second is an error.

Okay define the error in theological hypothesis? If that’s where you are in your faith today, I can’t change you,if you decide to have a problem with the Church, so be it.

Go over Church history, every synod, every council was about some asking what exactly do we teach, and if he/they didn’t get an answer in their time, then they wrote their own on it, and then the Church responded.

Let’s take Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, wasn’t until the 900’s, a monk asked his Abbot, what do we mean by Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist. He didn’t get a satisfactory answer. He wrote a book on his opinion on what the Church means (Outside the authority of the Church), and then the Church denounces his book. Approx 200 yrs later the question becomes bigger and the Church has to respond.
Well Thomas Aquinas put nails it, and describes it by the Transubstantiation.
The the Eastern Church, who’d rather leave it a question, and undefinable philosophically. However in the West it leads to heresies being undefined… The Eastern Church exits, but the western Church preserves the teachings of the Apostles.
Tossing around theories does not make the Church fallible in matters of faith.
The Church has not declared limbo a dogma/ a required truth of the Faith,
it simply states it may exist. Pope Benedict is a stout Theologian but he is one of many, so the day may come when the Church is required to decide officially.
But for today, under his authrority he liked to leave it on the back burner.

Oh by the way, The New Catechism 1995 edition was Published under his supervisory and his ‘Iprimi Potest.’ his watchful hand is all over it. Which is most likely why limbo isn’t mentioned in this one.

Let’s go here, you keep telling me what you presume the Church isn’t, what Is the Church to you?

William Butler Yates said, “Education is not a filling of a pail, but a lighting of a fire”

What does your fire burn for? ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation’ and that’s also at Trent.

A note in front of my Bible:
Can I bring you faith? Can I make you believe? I’m not even going to try,

if that’s what you find, ‘AMEN’ if you don’t find faith in these pages, however, I hope you will at least find wisdom.

“Faith cannot be destroyed, only abandoned”

If you have not studied church history, where how and when these beliefs, doctrines and dogmas were protected and preserved? Well your open to any suggestion someone knocking on your door with a Bible can say.
ME? I’m armed to the teeth, I wait for the knock and invite them in.

It’s always the hardest though arguing with catholics over Catholicism, they think because we went to the same teachings through different schools (Parochial) and that they know more or the same as we do, and that their opinions carry more weight.
I spent ten yrs studying with the Protestants, Today I am a Bible reading Catholic, I will always be a Bible reading Catholic, everything we do is scriptural. Outside of it, there is no place for me.

and for the record Jesus prayed we all be united. I’m all for the E.O and the RCC being united… I go to Greek Orthodox Bible study on occasion and I’m welcomed.

God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

I am in the Roman Catholic Church which is the same Church that Father Francis A. Sullivan belongs to. As you probably don’t know, Father Sullivan is the leading theological authority on the magisterium.
The question whether a doctrine has been infallibly taught is not a matter of doctrine, but a matter of fact, which has to be "manifestly established." What must be “manifestly established,” when the claim is made that a doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, is that not only the pope, but the whole body of Catholic bishops as well, are proposing the same doctrine as one which the faithful are obliged to hold in a definitive way. …

“The history of Catholic doctrine suggests the need of great caution in claiming that something has been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, if there is reason to judge that a position on which there was a consensus in the past no longer enjoys such a consensus. In such a case, it would be wise to put off any peremptory declaration until it becomes clear whether a question has been raised that obliges the Church to look at an old problem in a new light and perhaps come up with a better answer to it.”
See:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_A._Sullivan

Hey Sid,
Is that a reference I see, THANKS! It mauy help:

Fr. Francis Sullivan says:

CANON 749 of the Code of Canon Law declares that no doctrine is understood to have been defined infallibly unless this fact is clearly established. There are sound theological reasons for applying this same rule to the claim that a doctrine has been infallibly taught by the ordinary universal magisterium. Hence I take the C.D.F.'s statement to mean that it is a clearly established fact that the world-wide Catholic episcopate is in agreement with Pope John Paul II in teaching that the exclusion of women from ordination to the priesthood is a divinely revealed doctrine that must be held definitively by all the faithful. I think it is a fair question to ask how they know that this is a clearly established fact. One thing, at least, is certain: The statement of the C.D.F. to this effect is not infallible, because, even published with papal approval, it remains a statement of the congregation, to which the Pope cannot communicate his prerogative of infallibility.

When a doctrine has been infallibly defined, or when it is absolutely certain that it has been infallibly taught, it is irreversible. Further development can clarify the meaning of such a doctrine and can lead to its being better expressed, but cannot reverse it. On the other hand, the history of Catholic doctrine provides some examples of propositions that, up to a certain point in time, seemed to be the unanimous teaching of the whole episcopate and yet, as a result of a further development of doctrine, are no longer the teaching of the church.

To give an example: The bishops gathered at the Council of Florence in 1442 no doubt expressed the common teaching of the whole episcopate at that time when they said that all pagans and Jews would certainly go to hell if they did not become Catholics before they died. This is certainly not the doctrine of the modern Catholic Church. Other examples of doctrines that had a long tradition but were subsequently reversed concerned the morality of owning slaves and exploiting their labor, and the obligation requiring rulers of Catholic nations to prevent the propagation of Protestantism in their territories.

Such examples suggest that appeal to a long-standing tradition of the past might not suffice as proof that a doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium. What has to be clearly established is that the tradition has remained constant, and that even today the universal body of Catholic bishops is teaching the same doctrine as definitively to be held. How can this be demonstrated? In his encyclical Evangelium vitae (March 1995) Pope John Paul II indicated one way this can be done–namely, by consulting all the bishops. When he declared that the doctrine condemning direct abortion “was taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium,” he said that he was teaching this “in communion with the bishops–who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine” (Evangelium vitae, No. 62).

Another criterion was suggested by Pope Pius IX, who said that the response of faith must be given to “those things which are handed on by the ordinary magisterium of the whole church dispersed throughout the world as divinely revealed, and therefore are held by the universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians to pertain to the faith” (Tuas libenter, 1863)…

THE CHANGES IN CHURCH DOCTRINE that have actually taken place in the course of history show that a tradition could hold firm until advances in human knowledge or culture obliged the church to look at the question in a new light. Through honest reexamination of its tradition in this new light, the church has sometimes come to see that the reasons for holding to its previous position were not decisive after all. There is no denying the fact that many of the reasons given in the past to justify the exclusion of women from the priesthood are such as one would be embarrassed to offer today. No doubt, better reasons than those have been presented in the recent documents of the Holy See.

womenpriests.org/teaching/sulliva1.asp

 

[ron77nyc]

Okay define the error in theological hypothesis?

No one was ever told it was a theological hypothesis until now. It was mandatory.
mandate: an authoritative command or instruction.

The Church has not declared limbo a dogma/ a required truth of the Faith,
it simply states it may exist.

May I say again; no one got the message until now. I attended Catholic school for 12 years and never heard such a thing. I don’t care what they do with limbo. I never believed in it anyway but if I said that 40 years ago I would be anti-Catholic.

 

[ron77nyc]

When a doctrine has been infallibly defined, or when it is absolutely certain that it has been infallibly taught, it is irreversible. Further development can clarify the meaning of such a doctrine and can lead to its being better expressed, but cannot reverse it. On the other hand, the history of Catholic doctrine provides some examples of propositions that, up to a certain point in time, seemed to be the unanimous teaching of the whole episcopate and yet, as a result of a further development of doctrine, are no longer the teaching of the church.

To give an example: The bishops gathered at the Council of Florence in 1442 no doubt expressed the common teaching of the whole episcopate at that time when they said that all pagans and Jews would certainly go to hell if they did not become Catholics before they died. This is certainly not the doctrine of the modern Catholic Church.

This definitely was an infallible statement. I’m not saying I agree with it or it’s true but it passes the 4 tests of infallibility and it was reversed.

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT
“There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be (1)
intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a
matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.”

If the Catholic Church wants to unite with the Eastern Orthodox or any other church they are going to have to simplify things and drop a lot more than limbo. All these excess explanations are hindrances to unity.

 

[ron77nyc]

To give an example: The bishops gathered at the Council of Florence in 1442 no doubt expressed the common teaching of the whole episcopate at that time when they said that all pagans and Jews would certainly go to hell if they did not become Catholics before they died. This is certainly not the doctrine of the modern Catholic Church. Other examples of doctrines that had a long tradition but were subsequently reversed concerned the morality of owning slaves and exploiting their labor, and the obligation requiring rulers of Catholic nations to prevent the propagation of Protestantism in their territories.

Such examples suggest that appeal to a long-standing tradition of the past might not suffice as proof that a doctrine has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium. What has to be clearly established is that the tradition has remained constant, and that even today the universal body of Catholic bishops is teaching the same doctrine as definitively to be held.

What they have done is redefined infallibility because the old definition doesn’t let all the pieces fit. So if 25 years from now they want to make women priests they can because at that time they will say it’s a tradition that hasn’t remained constant and we have a deeper understanding now.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ron,

This definitely was an infallible statement. I’m not saying I agree with it or it’s true but it passes the 4 tests of infallibility and it was reversed.

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT
“There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be (1)
intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a
matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.”

If the Catholic Church wants to unite with the Eastern Orthodox or any other church they are going to have to simplify things and drop a lot more than limbo. All these excess explanations are hindrances to unity.

There is actually one more condition for recognizing the infallibility of a certain teaching of the Church that most people overlook - maybe because it’s too obvious, or maybe because people simply forget or neglect it.

The subject of infalliblity involves not just Faith and morals, it involves Faith and morals within the Sacred Tradition of the Church. The “Church” is not just the West, but also the East. There must be testimony in the Decree that, aside from the 4 criteria you gave, the matter being defined is either “from God” or that it is “divinely revealed” or from the Church Catholic (not just the Latin Church) or some such other statement that makes it clear that what is being defined comes from the Sacred Tradition of the whole Church.

Applying that additional criterion will help you out much, I think. It will help you realize that while, for example, Ordinatio Sacerdatolis or Ineffabilis Deus has the character of infallibility, past statements about Limbo have not.

I’ll end with an excerpt from the “Infallibility- revisited” thread:

Someone reading the Decree will look at the Proem and think, “those are some nice historical facts.” But the Proem was not added for the purpose of being a historical lesson. Rather, it was added to assert the norm of Sacred Tradition that serve as the boundaries within which the Pope is permitted to exercise the charism of infallibility. Thus, for example, when the Proem relates, “Therefore, the bishops of the whole world, sometimes singly, sometimes assembled in councils, following the long-standing custom of the churches and the form of the ancient rule, reported to the Apostolic See those dangers especially which came up in matters of faith,” this establishes the rule by which the Pope is alerted that the charism of infallibility needs to be exercised by his Petrine Office. This obliterates any possibility of that ludicrous scenario mentioned in a previous post (the Pope wakes up one day and decides he is going to make a new dogma) from ever occurring. The Proem is the guarantee that the Pope exercises infallibility only as a response to the needs of the Church through the bishops (i.e., this is the way it happened according to Sacred Tradition, so this is the only way the Pope can do it today).

If you don’t believe me, perhaps you will believe the statement of a local Synod of bishops and Pio Nono himself. After the Council, the Swiss bishops issued the following Pastoral Instruction in June, 1871:
“It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition: he is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains; he is tied up and limited by the Creeds already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church; he is tied up and limited by the divine law and by the constitution of the Church [COMMENT: this refers to the ecclesiology of the Church, which has the greatest relevance for our present discussion].”

POPE PIUS IX’s REPLY: “…nothing could be more opportune or more worthy of praise, or cause the truth to stand out more clearly, than [this] Pastoral.”

FYI, the V1 Fathers holding the Absolutist Petrine view (writers of that period called them “neo-ultramontanists,” to be distinguished from the ultramontanists who adhered to a more High Petrine view) lobbied to have the Proem removed, some calling its contents nothing more than the Gallican heresy in disguise!

Blessings,
Marduk