Is Limbo a Capital 'T' Tradition & de fide?

[Rykell]

On another note, Maria, I read the document link provided by Kellyanne, and discovered that it was approved for publication by our present Pope Benedict XVI.

• PRELIMINARY NOTE: The theme “The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized” was placed under the study of the International Theological Commission. In order to prepare for this study, a Committee was formed comprised by Most Rev. Ignazio Sanna, Most Rev. Basil Kyu-Man Cho, Rev. Peter Damien Akpunonu, Rev. Adelbert Denaux, Rev. Gilles Emery, OP, Msgr. Ricardo Ferrara, Msgr. István Ivancsó, Msgr. Paul McPartlan, Rev. Dominic Veliath, SDB (President of the Committee), and Sr. Sarah Butler, MSTB. The Committee also received the collaboration of Rev. Luis Ladaria, SJ, the Secretary General of the International Theological Commission, and Msgr. Guido Pozzo, the Assistant to the ITC, as well as other members of the Commission. The general discussion on the theme took place during the plenary sessions of the ITC, held in Rome. In October 2005 and October 2006. This present text was approved in forma specifica by the members of the Commission, and was subsequently submitted to its President, Cardinal William Levada who, upon receiving the approval of the Holy father in an audience granted on January 19, 2007, approved the text for publication.

Even though Gorman insists it was only a “commission”, the result was papal approval, indicating that the teachings of the commission are, as you put it, de fide.

What concerns me is the position you assumed here, implying that the Church’s present teaching is not true in light of how you read the older documents. Remember, this teaching is not a matter of Divine Tradition or Revelation. This “theological hypothesis” will be brought to further light as the Lord decides to lead His church into fuller understanding.

Current teaching of the Church can never be in contradiction to past certain teaching of the Church. If a current teaching is in contradiction to past certain teaching, it is not the teaching of the Church.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

As always, we have the obligation to listen to the Church of today, which brings the discussion back to circular arguments wherein you cling rather notably to past teachings in order to dismiss the present ones. It is your opinion that you have been expressing in order to interpret these older documents, but I don’t see any credentials that entitle you to teach it in opposition to the Church’s position here and now.

That unbaptized infants are penalized for original sin by being deprived of the beatific vision is still the official teaching of the Catholic Church of today.

This fact is unaltered by the publication of an erroneous statement written by theologians who do not speak with the authority of the Magisterium. By the same token, the Magisterium’s condemnation of contraception as a mortal sin was unaltered by the pro-contraception majority report of Pope Paul VI’s birth control commission.

The Catholic Church does not contradict herself in her official teachings. If she were capable of contradicting herself in her official teachings, retracting in 2007 what she taught in 1274 and 1439 at the Councils of Lyons II and Florence, then she would not be protected by Jesus’s continuing presence (Mt 28:20).

Please check the approved seminary manuals used all over the world prior to the current confusion in the human elements of the Church. You will see from them that the exclusion of unbaptized infants from the beatific vision, for the reason that they die in original sin only, is taught as de fide.

In question 324 of Father Francis J. Connell’s edition of Baltimore Catechism No. 3, we are taught as follows:

"Infants who die without baptism of any kind do not suffer the punishments of those who die in mortal sin. They may enjoy a certain natural happiness, but they will not enjoy the supernatural happiness of heaven."

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Rykell]

Please check the approved seminary manuals used all over the world prior to the current confusion in the human elements of the Church. You will see from them that the exclusion of unbaptized infants from the beatific vision, for the reason that they die in original sin only, is taught as de fide.

Exactly, you used the correct words, “prior to.” I presume you disagree with the ongoing development in “present” theology, based on the OLD catechism definition, rather the teaching in the “pesent” CCC, which supercedes it.

I see that no amount of proof texts, as ncjohn called them, will change your mind, so you are still going to believe as you will. Maybe some day, light will dawn. God bless you.

In question 324 of Father Francis J. Connell’s edition of Baltimore Catechism No. 3, we are taught as follows:

 

[MTD]

As always, we have the obligation to listen to the Church of today, which brings the discussion back to circular arguments wherein you cling rather notably to past teachings in order to dismiss the present ones.

Maybe because I fail to see how the Church can teach a doctrine as certain at one period in history and then teach it as not certain in a later period. To say that what the Church once taught as certain is no longer certain is to say that the Church is not really the guardian of truth because she erred.

It is your opinion that you have been expressing in order to interpret these older documents, but I don’t see any credentials that entitle you to teach it in opposition to the Church’s position here and now.

I claim no credentials. I quoted councils, popes, and Doctors of the Church; I would think they have sufficient credentials to be accepted as trustworthy teachers.

On another note, Maria, I read the document link provided by Kellyanne, and discovered that it was approved for publication by our present Pope Benedict XVI.

Approval by the pope does not mean it is infallibly proposed. Also, when not speaking ex cathedra, a pope can make an error in faith and morals on a matter not yet defined.

Even though Gorman insists it was only a “commission”, the result was papal approval, indicating that the teachings of the commission are, as you put it, de fide.

No, actually, de fide refers to doctrine infallibly proposed by the church as divinely revealed. This can happen either through the supreme magisterium, as when a pope speaks ex cathedra or when an ecumenical council defines doctrines and is approved by the pope, or through the ordinary and universal magisterium, as when the whole teaching office everywhere proposes a truth as divinely revealed.

What concerns me is the position you assumed here, implying that the Church’s present teaching is not true in light of how you read the older documents.

Well, it is quite simple. If the Church has taught a particular doctrine as certain sometime in the past, she cannot go back on it. If certain members of the Church teach that doctrine as no longer certain, they cannot be followed in that. It must be assumed they are making an error, hopefully in good faith.

Remember, this teaching is not a matter of Divine Tradition or Revelation. This “theological hypothesis” will be brought to further light as the Lord decides to lead His church into fuller understanding.

I think the Church has already understood this teaching, and I wonder why some are trying to revise it. Doctrine cannot be revised in light of today’s sin. Such is a Modernist belief; i.e., that doctrine can and ought to revolve to reflect the current beliefs of members of the Church.

Maria

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Rykell writes:

"Exactly, you used the correct words, ‘prior to.’ I presume you disagree with the ongoing development in ‘present’ theology, based on the OLD catechism definition, rather the teaching in the ‘present’ CCC, which supersedes it."

I disagree–and *every *Catholic must disagree–with any theological “development” that contradicts the truth of the Catholic Faith.

Together with the Magisterium of both yesterday and today, I reject the “heretical invention of the evolution of dogmas, passing from one meaning to another, different from that which the Church first had” (Pope St. Pius X, Oath Against Modernism; old Denzinger number 2145).

*CCC *1261 should be understood in the light of the continuity and coherence of Catholic doctrine. In that light, the “hope” for “a way of salvation” for unbaptized infants should be seen as the hope for unending natural happiness in limbo. To be saved from what Our Lord calls the “fire” of hell (i.e., the “pain of sense”) is a form of salvation, even though it is not the attainment of the beatific vision. If we interpret *CCC *1261 correctly, there is no contradiction between the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Baltimore Catechism.

The new catechism does not supersede previous catechisms. Instead, it supplements them.

Again, the Catholic Church does *not *contradict herself in her official teachings. Otherwise, Christ would have failed to keep his promises to the Church. Such a failure is impossible.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[ncjohn]

*CCC *1261 should be understood in the light of the continuity and coherence of Catholic doctrine. In that light, the “hope” for “a way of salvation” for unbaptized infants should be seen as the hope for unending natural happiness in limbo. To be saved from what Our Lord calls the “fire” of hell (i.e., the “pain of sense”) is a form of salvation, even though it is not the attainment of the beatific vision. If we interpret *CCC *1261 correctly, there is no contradiction between the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Baltimore Catechism.

So then, as I understand your position, the Commission and the Pope just aren’t smart enough to understand the history and theology, as well as past statements, as well as you do?

And that they just don’t know how to properly twist the words of the Catechism to make things come out to your interpretation?

Funny how I can read the same documents and just don’t find that certainty that you do. And apparently the Commission specifically set up to study the issue, and the Pope himself, who is certainly no slouch as a theologian, don’t find it either.

Usually, when I find myself in such a position, I start to wondering why it is that I am so steadfastly against what those who should know better than I do have to say. And eventually I usually find a pretty good reason for it.

Peace,

 

[Rykell]

MTD:

Approval by the pope does not mean it is infallibly proposed. Also, when not speaking ex cathedra, a pope can make an error in faith and morals on a matter not yet defined.

You are a historian, so you will realize that there have been only two Ex Cathedra statements in Church history (Assumption and Immaculate Conception). So unless the pope qualifies his words as “ex cathedra” you want me to believe that he is teaching error? The document cited does reveal the current mind of the Church, and it was promulgated through the efforts of many appointed commissioners - not singly. Then your Motu Proprio on the TLM (if it comes) can be disregarded, with that logic. And so can everything else that comes from the Office of the Holy See.

 

[BobP123]

You are a historian, so you will realize that there have been only two Ex Cathedra statements in Church history (Assumption and Immaculate Conception). So unless the pope qualifies his words as “ex cathedra” you want me to believe that he is teaching error?

Please define error. And please contrast that with lack of clarification.

The document cited does reveal the current mind of the Church, and it was promulgated through the efforts of many appointed commissioners - not singly. Then your Motu Proprio on the TLM (if it comes) can be disregarded, with that logic. And so can everything else that comes from the Office of the Holy See.

If “many appointed commissioners” had their way, Paul VI’s *Humanae Vitae *would have not been issued. So that argument falls short.

The Pope is normally not infallible so it may rain if he says it will rain, or it may not. But I bet a whole lot of people will jump on him if it doesn’t rain, because just as the news media has nicely managed to mistranslate everything so far, his infallibility will have been crushed further. In fact, because of the current state of affairs, who knows what the current mind of the Church is and why the Motu Proprio hasn’t been issued yet? But we can lay odds, can’t we?

 

[Rykell]

Steve Green:

Together with the Magisterium of both yesterday and today, I reject the “heretical invention of the evolution of dogmas, passing from one meaning to another, different from that which the Church first had” (Pope St. Pius X, Oath Against Modernism; old Denzinger number 2145).

Let’s consider a document by Pius X’s predecessor, ok? Nowhere does any document or scripture say that we are permitted to disregard all official Church teaching whenever we “think” the teaching contradicts something declared in the past. It is my hope that you will get some counsel from the Holy See or the bishop of your diocese. Hopefully, you believe they are lawful ministers who can explain more clearly than we have been able to here. It is a gift of their office, and they have far more documentation at their fingertips than we can produce — i.e, if you consider these documents as validly proclaimed.

1. Now, since our Apostolic Office demands we carefully and zealously defend the cause of the Church committed to us by Christ, we condemn those who attack and despise the Church itself, its sacred laws, ministers, and this Apostolic See. Hence, with this letter, once more we confirm, proclaim and condemn totally and singly that which in many consistorial allocutions and in our other Letters we have been forced to deplore, declare and condemn.[3]

1. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom “the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.”[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: **“If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;”**5] “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;”[6] “He who does not believe will be condemned;”[7] “He who does not believe is already condemned;”[8] “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are “perverted and self-condemned;”[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them “false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm

 

[Rykell]

BobP123:

If “many appointed commissioners” had their way, Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae would have not been issued. So that argument falls short.

I don’t believe the argument falls short, because you are mixing apples with oranges. In your example, Paul VI overruled the commission. In mine, Benedict approved it and ordered publication of its contents.

So if Paul VI promulgated H.V. and it is now considered solemn teaching, why do you not give the same credence to the approval of this document by Pope Benedict?

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

So then, as I understand your position, the Commission and the Pope just aren’t smart enough to understand the history and theology, as well as past statements, as well as you do?

The intelligence and scholarly credentials of the present Pope are not the issues. Nor do the dogmas of papal authority and infallibility mean that every Pope is right every time he allows a commission to issue a report.

Regardless of their intelligence and scholarship, Pope John XXII was wrong to deny the truth that the blessed begin to enjoy the beatific vision immediately after death, and Popes Paul V and Urban VIII were mistaken in allowing commissions to condemn Galileo.

An even more striking example involves the first Pope, who was reproved to his face by the Apostle Paul for confusing believers about the relationship between Judaism and the Faith (*Gal *2:11-14). St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the Church’s greatest theologians, cites this passage as a confirmation of a Catholic’s duty to uphold the Faith even should a Pope, following St. Peter’s bad example at Antioch, fail on occasion to do so:

"It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Gal. 2:11, ‘Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects’"(Summa theologiae, pt. 2 of pt. 2, ques. 33, art. 4, reply to obj. 2).

Please read St. Thomas’s complete treatment of fraternal correction:

newadvent.org/summa/3033.htm

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

I don’t believe the argument falls short, because you are mixing apples with oranges. In your example, Paul VI overruled the commission. In mine, Benedict approved it and ordered publication of its contents.

So if Paul VI promulgated H.V. and it is now considered solemn teaching, why do you not give the same credence to the approval of this document by Pope Benedict?

Because the sinfulness of contraception is an irreversible Catholic moral teaching whose infallibility is guaranteed by the Church’s ordinary and universal Magisterium, whereas the ITC’s statement on limbo contradicts the following de fide Catholic doctrine:

“Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds” (Council of Florence; old Denzinger number 693; page 220 in Deferrari’s Denzinger: The Sources of Catholic Dogma).**

No one can be given credence for approving a document that contradicts a Catholic dogma.

A religion in which the Church is thought to be able to contradict her dogmas or irreversible moral teachings is ***not ***Catholicism.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Rykell]

“Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds” (Council of Florence; old Denzinger number 693; page 220 in Deferrari’s Denzinger: The Sources of Catholic Dogma).

This is where you have privately interpreted the Council of Florence, Steve. The Council did NOT direct the above statement to the innocent babies who die without baptism, or they would have stated so. That they did not, does not prove the mind of the Church. It says to me that it applies to those who having reached reason, are able to make the choice for God, but refuse.

You need to embrace the entire teaching of the Church, not a single statement out of context. This is protestant fundamentalism, a failure to consider the entire body of scripture in favor of one single verse to which one applies their understanding and runs with it.

Do yourself a favor and check with those who know the entire Church’s history and can guide you properly.

 

[MTD]

You are a historian, so you will realize that there have been only two Ex Cathedra statements in Church history (Assumption and Immaculate Conception). So unless the pope qualifies his words as “ex cathedra” you want me to believe that he is teaching error? The document cited does reveal the current mind of the Church, and it was promulgated through the efforts of many appointed commissioners - not singly. Then your Motu Proprio on the TLM (if it comes) can be disregarded, with that logic. And so can everything else that comes from the Office of the Holy See.

There are few distinctions we need to make here. Infallible teaching does not just come from ex cathedra statements from the pope nor does it only concern de fide (divinely revealed) doctrine.

The pope speaking ex cathedra properly belongs to the supreme magisterium, but the ordinary and universal magisterium is also capable of infallibly proposing doctrine. This ordinary and universal magisterium is exercised when the whole Teaching Church everywhere teaches a doctrine as divinely revealed, etc.

And the Church is also infallible with regard to other doctrines without which she cannot continue her mission of guarding the Deposit of Faith. Thus she is infallible in approving religious orders, in dogmatic facts, in canonizations, etc. She is also infallible with regards to the doctrinal aspect of universal disciplines (though not with the prudential aspect).

Maria

 

[Rykell]

MTD:

Rykell:

Maria:

Approval by the pope does not mean it is infallibly proposed. Also, when not speaking ex cathedra, a pope can make an error in faith and morals on a matter not yet defined.

You are a historian, so you will realize that there have been only two Ex Cathedra statements in Church history (Assumption and Immaculate Conception). So unless the pope qualifies his words as “ex cathedra” you want me to believe that he is teaching error?
There are few distinctions we need to make here. Infallible teaching does not just come from ex cathedra statements from the pope nor does it only concern de fide (divinely revealed) doctrine.

Yes, I certainly understand infallibility, so I’m not sure what you were trying to say. You first indicated that approval does not mean infallibility. How does describing “infallibility” answer my original question? He may possibly teach error when he approves that which is proposed by lawful appointees unless he states it is “ex cathedra” or infallible? Is this what you think I should believe?

 

[gorman64]

Rykell:

You are a historian, so you will realize that there have been only two Ex Cathedra statements in Church history (Assumption and Immaculate Conception). So unless the pope qualifies his words as “ex cathedra” you want me to believe that he is teaching error? The document cited does reveal the current mind of the Church, and it was promulgated through the efforts of many appointed commissioners - not singly. Then your Motu Proprio on the TLM (if it comes) can be disregarded, with that logic. And so can everything else that comes from the Office of the Holy See.

Dear Rykell,

The statement above in bold is incorrect.

Here’s an excerpt from a pre-Vatican II dogmatic theology manual. A Manual Of Catholic Theology, Based On Scheeben’s “Dogmatik”, Joseph Wilhelm, D.D., PHD. And Thomas B. Scannell, D.D. With A Preface By Cardinal Manning, Benziger Bros. 1906

From Section 31 — Papal Judgments and their Infallibility.

From the Infallibility of ex cathedra judgments, the council deduces their Irreformability, and further establishes the latter by excluding the consent of the Church as the necessary condition of it. The approbation of the Church is the consequence not the cause of the Irreformability of ex cathedra judgments.

III. Ex cathedra decisions admit of great variety of form. At the same time, in the documents containing such decisions only those passages are infallible which the judge manifestly intended to be so. Recommendations, proofs, and explanations accompanying the decision are not necessarily infallible, except where the explanation is itself the dogmatic interpretation of a text of Scripture, or of a rule of Faith, or in as far as it fixes the meaning and extent of the definition. It is not always easy to draw the line between the definition and the other portions of the document. The ordinary rules for interpreting ecclesiastical documents must be applied. The commonest forms of ex cathedra decisions used at the present time are the following:—

1. The most solemn form is the Dogmatic Constitution, or Bull, in which the decrees are proposed expressly as ecclesiastical laws, and are sanctioned by heavy penalties; e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorem Fidei against the Jansenists, and the Bull Ineffabilis Deus on the Immaculate Conception.

1. Next in solemnity are Encyclical Letters, so far as they are of a dogmatic character. They resemble Constitutions and Bulls, but, as a rule, they impose no penalties. Some of them are couched in strictly juridical terms, such as the Encyclical Quanta cura, while others are more rhetorical in style. In the latter case it is not absolutely certain that the Pope speaks infallibly.

1. Apostolic Letters and Briefs, even when not directly addressed to the whole Church, must be considered as ex cathedra when they attach censures to the denial of certain doctrines, or when, like Encyclicals, they define or condemn in strict judicial language, or in equivalent terms. But it is often extremely difficult to determine whether these letters are dogmatic or only monitory and administrative. Doubts on the subject are sometimes removed by subsequent declarations.

1. Lastly, the Pope can speak ex cathedra by confirming and approving of the decisions of other tribunals, such as general or particular councils, or Roman Congregations. In ordinary cases, however, the approbation of a particular council is merely an act of supervision, and the decision of a Roman Congregation is not ex cathedra unless the Pope makes it his own.

The rest of the quote referenced above post is correct. The question is this…How do you explain the contradictions with prior certain teaching?

You can’t just say, “Go with the latest one…it’s the most current”.

Gorman

 

[Rykell]

Steve Green:

Regardless of their intelligence and scholarship, Pope John XXII was wrong to deny the truth that the blessed begin to enjoy the beatific vision immediately after death, and Popes Paul V and Urban VIII were mistaken in allowing commissions to condemn Galileo.

An even more striking example involves the first Pope, who was reproved to his face by the Apostle Paul for confusing believers about the relationship between Judaism and the Faith (Gal 2:11-14). St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the Church’s greatest theologians, cites this passage as a confirmation of a Catholic’s duty to uphold the Faith even should a Pope, following St. Peter’s bad example at Antioch, fail on occasion to do so:

Very important point … Peter’s action was not in any way connected with the essential Deposit of Faith. He was not in a position to be charged as being in heresy. It was simply his personal lack of sensitivity and imprudence that was at the root of the disagreement.

As for the disagreement between Sts. Peter and Paul, I am not certain when their meeting took place, but clearly, had Peter not agreed with him, would that give Paul the right to continue on his own path in disobedience? The debate was worked out within the Church itself, not in opposition to Her. The first Council of Jerusalem is proof that they did come to consensus, working together, not apart from each other, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Read the specific declaration, “For the Holy Spirit and WE have decided …” Acts 15:28

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

This is where you have privately interpreted the Council of Florence, Steve. The Council did NOT direct the above statement to the innocent babies who die without baptism, or they would have stated so. That they did not, does not prove the mind of the Church. It says to me that it applies to those who having reached reason, are able to make the choice for God, but refuse.

You need to embrace the entire teaching of the Church, not a single statement out of context. This is protestant fundamentalism, a failure to consider the entire body of scripture in favor of one single verse to which one applies their understanding and runs with it.

Do yourself a favor and check with those who know the entire Church’s history and can guide you properly.

It is clear that the Council of Florence, in referring to those who die “in original sin only,” is speaking of unbaptized infants, for otherwise the same council would not have taught that there is no remedy for infants apart from the sacrament of Baptism:

"With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians" (old Denzinger number 712).

The above teaching of the Council of Florence is reiterated in the following sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 403 and 1250.

Dogmatic statements issued by general councils must mean something definite, or else their issuance is pointless. These statements must also avoid misleading or confusing Catholics.

If we say that general councils issue pointless, misleading, or confusing teachings, then we are undermining the truth that Jesus is constantly protecting the Church that he founded on the rock of St. Peter (Mt 16:18).

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Rykell]

“With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians” (old Denzinger number 712).

This is not adverse to what we all believe, but it does not state the concept of limbo or define what happens to those babies who die without baptism … only that baptism must not be delayed. I agree.

You folks are giving me a terrible headache, and since I see no disposition to consider the positive thrusts offered in this entire thread that the Church entrusts these infants to the mercy of God, I honestly have nothing further to debate here. It is a lost cause, IMO.

 

[gorman64]

Rykell:

you will realize that there have been only two Ex Cathedra statements in Church history (Assumption and Immaculate Conception).

Dear Rykell,

Can you at least admit you were wrong here?

Btw, Scheeben was an important figure as an apologist and explainer of the Vatican Council against Dollinger (and other liberals).

Gorman