otherwise, and even to acts of the Popes; or whether this de fide definition extends solely to those utterances of Popes in past as well as future times, wherein all the notes, prescribed as belonging to definition on matters of faith, combine, so as to create an infallible Papal de fide definition. This is the question, and in the solution of this I cannot concede an iota to Dr. Schulte, because I have learnt in the Catholic Church not to explain away (deuteln) a definition of a General Council (as an Augsburg reviewer unjustly says I do), but to hold to it exactly and with all my strength, to add nothing to it, but at the same time to detract nothing from it. This is the position I assume in this work of mine, this is the gist of the question between me and my opponents.
The same reviewer as he proceeds in his remarks is guilty of making a certain mischievous confusion and perversion of theological ideas, which he hides behind expressions quite foreign to the subject. He says: 'The one, Fessler, draws his proofs according to mere theory; the other, Schulte, deals simply and solely with the practical historical point of view;' and he adds, 'the only real contest between the two lies in the purely theoretical treatment of Infallibility, and in its practical application.' To treat the matter in this way is simply to misunderstand the real point at issue, for what the reviewer calls 'practical application' really means that straightforward obedience and true submission which a Catholic ought to pay to the directions and definitions of the Pope.
But it was not the Vatican Council that first
