DIVINE institution of the Primacy

[ConstantineTG]

Where did the “one man” concept come from? The doctrine of the Catholic Church since the time of Pope St. Leo the Great states that the keys are shared by the Pope with his brother bishops.

I think this is why these issues are so difficult to resolve - because someone will always jump in trying to inject irrelevant matter.

The issue at this point is proof that the primacy is handed down. The notion of keys being given by Christ is a strong indication that the primacy is handed down. This Absolutist Petrine claim that the authority of the keys is possessed ONLY by the Pope is not Catholic doctrine, nor is it relevant to the matter. So please refrain from misrepresenting Catholic teaching, and stick to the topic.

Blessings,
Marduk

Pastor Aeternus. The Pope is supreme by virture of the authority of Peter passed on to all who would be Bishops of Rome. And this authority is from Peter getting the keys from Christ as narrated by the Gospel of Matthew.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Btw, brother CTG, I’ve never heard from any Catholic who uses the argument of passing down authority from the keys that Christ is absent from His Church. It is always rather those who oppose the claim who impose that artificial meaning into the doctrine so they can pretend to have cause to reject it.

Blessings,
Marduk

Really? Read the post I quoted from bzkoss236. He is the one who said that the keys are given to someone to rule while the King was away. Unless you want to say that bzkoss236 is not Catholic therefore you still haven’t heard any Catholic say that.

 

[R_C]

If it was divinely instituted, it would have been known more widely by the 70s AD around Christendom.

Sorry, this doesn’t sound like a good argument

Many, many aspects of the modern liturgy are divinely instituted and yet evolved through time. Remember that we are a growing vine, and that Christ did say that he had much more to say to us, but only slowly, in due time, when we could bear them.

Also, I understand your argument about the keys, but the Lord did say:

**tibi **dabo claves regni caelorum

He did not address all the apostles

And the Lord did say to and about Peter:

Simon, Simon, ecce, Satanas expetivit vos, ut cribraret sicut triticum.

Ego autem rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua.

Et tu, aliquando conversus, confirma fratres tuos.

And the Lord did take Peter aside and commanded him:

pasce agnos meos …] pasce oves meas

 

[mardukm]

No, those are the only two options for those who see the keys as symbols of authority. But keys are, as per their original design, tools of access to something inaccessible. You use a key to unlock a locked door, thus gain access. So are the keys Christ’s authority over the Church he is handing over to Peter? Or are they keys of access, given to Peter to be able to open the gates of the Kingdom and have access to it? That is why in the Orthodox Church, the belief is that every Bishop has the keys. It is not because the Orthodox believes every Bishop is a supreme, infallible Pope. It is because they bishop, especially early in the Church, is the one who presides over Liturgy where those gathered are brought to the Kingdom of God. The Bishop has the keys of access through the Apostolic Succession to bring the gathered faithful into the Kingdom.

The keys are shared by the Pope with his brother orthodox bishops, as St. Peter shared the keys with his fellow Aposltes. Please stop with this “the Orthodox Church belief is…” as if it is not the same as the Catholic belief. Please refrain from misrepresenting Catholic doctrine as well as bringing up irrelevant matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[PJM]

=mardukm;

"**It seems pretty obvious that the Bishop of Rome held a primacy, I think even a prime authority, in the Church (and as far as the Absolute/High Petrinism question,

So, I was wondering if you could point me towards any patristic sources which you think give evidence of the divine origin of the papacy.**

In addition to this I can provide 50 Biblical “Peter First” if space permitted

The words used by Jesus [perfect God] are carefully selected to insure proper; precise understanding.

[Mt. 16: 15-19] He [JESUS] said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, [Peter is in a personal one on one conversation with Jesus here] “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And [JESUS]I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock [ON YOU PETER] I will build my [SINGULAR] church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [19] I [Jesus] will give you [PETER / My new Church] the keys of the kingdom of heaven,

This is what Jesus said, did, intended and has accomplished. It’s what the Word of God clearly says and clearly means. Amen!

Back in the time if Jesus it was common for major cites to be walled in for protection from attack. These cities actually had two real GATES, with REAL KEYS.

Now under independent rule, each major city also had there own king, and thus a “kingdom.” So there were many Kings and many kingdoms. A brief reading of the Old Testament list many Kings (who often merged with other kingdoms for the purpose of self-defense) because they were often too small to be completely independent against other NATIONS, who too merged all of their kingdoms resources to do battle and gain territory.

The “Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven” is a literal statement of FACT! [Mt. 16:19] Jesus speaking directly to Saint Peter at the occasion of Founding His [now Catholic] Church: “* will give you [ALONE] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Now under independent rule, each major city also had there own king, and thus a “kingdom.” So there were many Kings and many kingdoms. A brief reading of the Old Testament list many Kings (who often merged with other kingdoms for the purpose of self-defense) because they were usually too small to be completely independent against other NATIONS, who too merged all of their kingdoms resources to do battle and gain territory.

So the Apostles and the Jewish people of that time period would have been familiar and comfortable with the idea of a King and his Kingdom, a Prime Minister who is the Keeper of the Key’s.

Such was true of Kings and Kingdoms. All day to day governance was given to a person that they selected as “Prime Minister.” An example of this is Genesis 42 and Joseph, the brother sold into slavery, which is made Prime Minister of all of Egypt.

Typically a Prime Minister had complete, autonomous control of ALL day to day activities. The Prime Minister answered to NO-ONE except the King Himself and nobody but the King.

This is the common understanding and the very reason for the specific reference to “Keys” and the “Kingdom.” There would have been absolutely zero doubts about what Christ was saying, doing and mandating for Peter, now the “Prime Minister” for Christ!*

 

[mardukm]

Really? Read the post I quoted from bzkoss236. He is the one who said that the keys are given to someone to rule while the King was away. Unless you want to say that bzkoss236 is not Catholic therefore you still haven’t heard any Catholic say that.

Really? Did bzkoss claim that Christ is absent from His Church when He handed the keys to St. Peter? Can you please point out where he stated that exactly?

All I noticed him presenting is an analogy relevant to the question “Is the primacy handed down?” So he presented the example of the keys being handed down in the OT, used to symbolize the handing on of authority when the ruler went away. Do you deny that this was the model in the OT? But does this mean that when Jesus handed on the keys to St. Peter, He was saying that he would be absent from His Church? Isn’t what is in the OT a shadow of the fullness that is present in the New? So we should be able to infer a difference even when we use examples from the OT to explain the NT, correct? Hence, how do you justify AUTOMATICALLY assuming Christ is absent just because He has handed on the keys to St. Peter?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

The keys are shared by the Pope with his brother orthodox bishops, as St. Peter shared the keys with his fellow Aposltes. Please stop with this “the Orthodox Church belief is…” as if it is not the same as the Catholic belief. Please refrain from misrepresenting Catholic doctrine as well as bringing up irrelevant matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

That is not what Pastor Aeternus says:

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0063/_PE.HTM

“It is to Simon alone… that the Lord… spoke these words: … I will give you the keys…”

And then

For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0063/_PF.HTM

 

[ConstantineTG]

Really? Did bzkoss claim that Christ is absent from His Church when He handed the keys to St. Peter? Can you please point out where he stated that exactly?

All I noticed him presenting is an analogy relevant to the question “Is the primacy handed down?” So he presented the example of the keys being handed down in the OT, used to symbolize the handing on of authority when the ruler went away. Do you deny that this was the model in the OT? But does this mean that when Jesus handed on the keys to St. Peter, He was saying that he would be absent from His Church? Isn’t what is in the OT a shadow of the fullness that is present in the New? So we should be able to infer a difference even when we use examples from the OT to explain the NT, correct? Hence, how do you justify AUTOMATICALLY assuming Christ is absent just because He has handed on the keys to St. Peter?

Blessings,
Marduk

I already highlighted it. The imagery used always to justify that the keys are keys of authority is when a king leaves and then appoints a Vicar whom he hands over the keys of the kingdom until his return. There is no other imagery here other than an absent king. Because a present king will not hand over authority to another if he is there. Does the UK have a Governor General? Of course not. Queen Elizabeth lives there and she is their head of state. She is also our head of state here in Canada, but she does not reside in Canada, thus we have a Governor General. It does not make sense to have a Governor General in the UK. The same way it doesn’t make sense to hand over keys of authority to someone else if Christ is not perceived to be absent.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother PJM,

I appreciate the contribution, and I actually agree with the rhetoric, finding it very compelling. But this is not what the OP is asking for. The OP is asking for PATRISTIC sources. If you can offer patristic sources that agree with your interpretation of the keys, please present it. I have actually investigated this issue of the keys from PATRISTIC sources. I found only one that utilizes the keys as a symbol of passing down authority (it was from a 4rd century Syrian source, IIRC), but even then he was not discussing the papacy.

I think it is pretty much a given that everyone believes that St. Peter was established by Christ to have the primacy. So the issue right now is whether the Primacy of St. Peter is passed down. What are the scriptural and patristic proofs to support a positive answer to the question? So far, the handing on of keys is a good indication, but it is not conclusive, IMO. Though Jesus indeed gave the keys to St. Peter, there are valid interpretations that don’t necessitate a handing of the keys from St. Peter to one particular person.

I believe there are other, more solid proofs to demonstrate the Catholic side of the present issue, but I don’t have the time to present them right now. Perhaps someone else will before I have time to fully address this issue.

Blessings,
Marduk

In addition to this I can provide 50 Biblical “Peter First” if space permitted

The words used by Jesus [perfect God] are carefully selected to insure proper; precise understanding…This is the common understanding and the very reason for the specific reference to “Keys” and the “Kingdom.” There would have been absolutely zero doubts about what Christ was saying, doing and mandating for Peter, now the “Prime Minister” for Christ!

 

[mardukm]

That is not what Pastor Aeternus says:

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0063/_PE.HTM

“It is to Simon alone… that the Lord… spoke these words: … I will give you the keys…”

And then

For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0063/_PF.HTM

This only states that Christ gave the keys to St. Peter alone. There is no denial that St. Peter did not thence share the keys with his fellow Apostles, or that every Pope does so with his fellow bishops. Try again.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bzkoss236]

Where did the “one man” concept come from? The doctrine of the Catholic Church since the time of Pope St. Leo the Great states that the keys are shared by the Pope with his brother bishops.

I think this is why these issues are so difficult to resolve - because someone will always jump in trying to inject irrelevant matter.

The issue at this point is proof that the primacy is handed down. The notion of keys being given by Christ is a strong indication that the primacy is handed down. This Absolutist Petrine claim that the authority of the keys is possessed ONLY by the Pope is not Catholic doctrine, nor is it relevant to the matter. So please refrain from misrepresenting Catholic teaching, and stick to the topic.

Blessings,
Marduk

The “one man” concept is from Christ only bestowing the Keys to Peter. And from what I gather from the NT, Christ didn’t claim to give the Keys to the other apostles, or did He or Peter imply that it was shared with the other apostles.

And you can’t deny that aside from the Eucharist, Christ is physically away from the Church. He is not here on Earth in a human form with which to communicate and guide. This is the role of the Pope as the Vicar.

Where do you get that Peter shared the Keys?

 

[mardukm]

I already highlighted it. The imagery used always to justify that the keys are keys of authority is when a king leaves and then appoints a Vicar whom he hands over the keys of the kingdom until his return. There is no other imagery here other than an absent king. Because a present king will not hand over authority to another if he is there. Does the UK have a Governor General? Of course not. Queen Elizabeth lives there and she is their head of state. She is also our head of state here in Canada, but she does not reside in Canada, thus we have a Governor General. It does not make sense to have a Governor General in the UK. The same way it doesn’t make sense to hand over keys of authority to someone else if Christ is not perceived to be absent.

If I understand this correctly, what is being claimed is that to say that the keys is a handing on of authority is to indicate absence, therefore the handing on of the keys cannot refer to a handing on of authority, but to something else.

I disagree. Jesus tells his Apostles that “whoever listens to you listens to me.” So Jesus was definitely handing on authority when he handed on the keys. It is true that this authority included the authority to bind and loose and to forgive sins, but it is a handing on of authority no matter how you look at it. Though Jesus gave the keys to St. Peter alone, the fact that all the Apostles had similar prerogatives can only mean that St. Peter shared the keys with the Apostles (this was the explicit teaching of St. Cyprian and Pope St. Leo the Great).

It is because of the Incarnational principle that we can never interpret the handing on of the keys (or authority) to mean that Christ is absent. As I had noted, even if we use the example of the OT to understand something in the New, we can only understand the OT example as a shadow, an imperfect representation of its fulfillment in the NT. Just because in the OT, the handing on the keys meant the absence of the person who was handing on the keys, this does not translate to the absence of the one who hands on the keys in the NT, especially if the one who hands on the keys is our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

But let’s take another example of some authority being handed down in the OT, and see if by it one can infer that when applied to the NT, it means the absence of the one who has handed it down. In the OT, the office of priesthood is handed down because the old priest died or was absent. This handing down of the office necessarily meant IN THE OT, that the one who occupied the office was either absent or had died. The priesthood of the Church is a continuation of the OT priesthood. But we know that Jesus Christ is our true priest, and He is the one who has handed down the priesthood to the ministers of the Church. Does the handing on of the priesthood in the Church mean that our true priest, Jesus Christ, is absent from us? The Incarnational principle demands that such a notion (that Christ is absent) is impossible.

The argument from absence is dogmatically illogical and patristically abhorrent. It does not even belong in the consciousness of the apostolic Christian Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The “one man” concept is from Christ only bestowing the Keys to Peter. And from what I gather from the NT, Christ didn’t claim to give the Keys to the other apostles, or did He or Peter imply that it was shared with the other apostles.

He gave all the Apostles a similar authority (to bind and loose, to forgive sins, and to speak with authority in His Name). As St. Cyprian explained, Christ gave the keys to only one person to signify a principle of unity for the Church, not that the keys are not to be shared.

And you can’t deny that aside from the Eucharist, Christ is physically away from the Church. He is not here on Earth in a human form with which to communicate and guide. This is the role of the Pope as the Vicar.

No, Christ is not absent at all. The Incarnational principle which is a dogma of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches demands the presence of Christ in everything the Church does.

Where do you get that Peter shared the Keys?

St. Cyprian and Pope St. Leo the Great are the earliest explicit references to this Catholic teaching.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bzkoss236]

He gave all the Apostles a similar authority (to bind and loose, to forgive sins, and to speak with authority in His Name). As St. Cyprian explained, Christ gave the keys to only one person to signify a principle of unity for the Church, not that the keys are not to be shared.

Yes, they all have similar authority, but the Pope has a jurisdiction over all Catholics, bishops and all. And yes, having the Keys given to one person does signify a principle of unity because you have one person to oversee that no one in authority is straying from the teachings of the Church. But that idea of unity does not prove in any way that the Keys were shared. If you are going to claim that the Keys were shared, I want your evidence that they were shared. Because I have yet to see in scripture or in ECF writings that it says that the Keys were shared.

No, Christ is not absent at all. The Incarnational principle which is a dogma of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches demands the presence of Christ in everything the Church does.

Like I said before, Christ is spiritually present, but not physically in human form. If you deny this, then you claim that Jesus has made His second coming, which means that the end of the world truly is near (it is 2012 after all). This is what I mean by physically present. The fact that Christ is not here on Earth as a human to speak for all Christians and to tell what is utmost truth and who is right and wrong about everything.

 

[Nine_Two]

Understood. But a particular person has expressed immediate concern for the matter, and I’m not inclined to simply tell him to do an internet search to answer his question. I admit I have never treated of this particular matter. Perhaps the reader has read everything else that is contained in CAF on the matter, and still does not have his question answered.

People have always accused me D) of being – umm – unique (for lack of a better word ) in my approach to these matters of ecclesiology. Perhaps he is asking me so I can offer a perspective not heretofore considered or presented to help him resolve the issue.

I’m presenting his question publicly for a resolution because I’m sure others have these patristic sources more readily available than me, and I hope they can present them so we can investigate them together. I agree with you that past discussions may have been fruitless - but I suspect that is because these past discussions have only presented the opposing EXTREMES of the Absolutist and Low Petrine views on the matter. Perhaps what is needed is the fresh perspective of a High Petrine advocate to help the OP resolve the issue for himself.

Blessings,
Marduk

I believe anti-petrine, and absolute petrine would be the extremes, not low, and absolute. Since there is no “middle” in your definition, low and high would be the non-extreme positions.

 

[Nine_Two]

Many, many aspects of the modern liturgy are divinely instituted and yet evolved through time. Remember that we are a growing vine, and that Christ did say that he had much more to say to us, but only slowly, in due time, when we could bear them.

Are you saying Papal Supremacy evolved? Because that’s the Orthodox position. If it wasn’t accepted by the rest of the church, doesn’t that mean that the Latin Church moved away from the East?

 

[MilesVitae]

That’s not helpful, brother CTG. There is a positive claim that Primacy is of divine institution. What needs to be done is to investigate the proofs for this. And the opposing pov can thence participate by trying to refute the evidence. Let the proponents of the claim present their evidence first.

I propose that the issue of whether Primacy is of divine establishment rests with the presentation of evidence that Jesus HIMSELF established a primacy among the Apostles. HOW we interpret the primacy, and whether this primacy was handed down are two wholly distinct issues. No doubt the latter two points will inevitably be discussed, but let’s focus on the one issue of whether Jesus HIMSELF established a primacy among the Apostles.

To that end, let the proponents of the claim offer their Scriptural evidence that Jesus HIMSELF established a primacy among the Apostles, as well as patristic support that the Scriptural evidence can be interpreted thus.

In summary, there are three distinct issues inherent in the question “Is Primacy of DIVINE institution?”
(1) Did Jesus establish a primacy among the Apostles?
(2) Was this primacy handed down?
(3) How do we interpret this primacy?

Let us just focus on the first issue in this thread for now. Once it has been sufficiently answered, whether in the positive or the negative, we can move on to the rest of the issues, perhaps in this thread, or in another. Of course, the assumption of moving on to issues (2) and (3) is premised on the idea that (1) will be answered in the positive, which I do believe with all my heart, soul, and mind will undoubtedly be the case.

Blessings,
Marduk

Well this discussion is already running its course quite quickly! I’ll have to read all the posts tomorrow after some much needed sleep.
As the one who originally asked the question, I would say that it seems clear (for various reasons) that Christ gave some sort of primacy to Peter - what exactly is the nature of this primacy, however, I’m not sure. Since it seems we intend to address that under 3), I suppose we can move on to 2) for now - was the primacy as Christ gave it handed down (inherent in that question, did Christ intend it to be passed down)?

 

[ConstantineTG]

This only states that Christ gave the keys to St. Peter alone. There is no denial that St. Peter did not thence share the keys with his fellow Apostles, or that every Pope does so with his fellow bishops. Try again.

Blessings,
Marduk

I really love the potshots you take with your every post. Can’t beat my logic with straight up logic?

C’mon, the post clearly shows that the Catholic Church believes only one man has the authority from the keys and that is the Bishop of Rome. It is as clear as day.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If I understand this correctly, what is being claimed is that to say that the keys is a handing on of authority is to indicate absence, therefore the handing on of the keys cannot refer to a handing on of authority, but to something else.

I disagree. Jesus tells his Apostles that “whoever listens to you listens to me.” So Jesus was definitely handing on authority when he handed on the keys. It is true that this authority included the authority to bind and loose and to forgive sins, but it is a handing on of authority no matter how you look at it. Though Jesus gave the keys to St. Peter alone, the fact that all the Apostles had similar prerogatives can only mean that St. Peter shared the keys with the Apostles (this was the explicit teaching of St. Cyprian and Pope St. Leo the Great).

It is because of the Incarnational principle that we can never interpret the handing on of the keys (or authority) to mean that Christ is absent. As I had noted, even if we use the example of the OT to understand something in the New, we can only understand the OT example as a shadow, an imperfect representation of its fulfillment in the NT. Just because in the OT, the handing on the keys meant the absence of the person who was handing on the keys, this does not translate to the absence of the one who hands on the keys in the NT, especially if the one who hands on the keys is our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

But let’s take another example of some authority being handed down in the OT, and see if by it one can infer that when applied to the NT, it means the absence of the one who has handed it down. In the OT, the office of priesthood is handed down because the old priest died or was absent. This handing down of the office necessarily meant IN THE OT, that the one who occupied the office was either absent or had died. The priesthood of the Church is a continuation of the OT priesthood. But we know that Jesus Christ is our true priest, and He is the one who has handed down the priesthood to the ministers of the Church. Does the handing on of the priesthood in the Church mean that our true priest, Jesus Christ, is absent from us? The Incarnational principle demands that such a notion (that Christ is absent) is impossible.

The argument from absence is dogmatically illogical and patristically abhorrent. It does not even belong in the consciousness of the apostolic Christian Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

No, the priesthood of the NT is definitely not a continuation of the priesthood of the OT. There are no more sacrifices to be made. What our priests today do is call God to remembrance. There is really only one priest today, and he is Jesus Christ.

The argument of absence is explicitly implied. Because what need is there for a visible head of the Church if the ever present head is there?

 

[mardukm]

Yes, they all have similar authority, but the Pope has a jurisdiction over all Catholics, bishops and all.

You said that St. Peter did not share the keys with the other Apostles. I responded that the Apostles all shared the same powers that St. Peter possessed by virtue of the keys to demonstrate that the keys were shared with them. Jumping to “the Pope’s jurisdiction” is just avoiding the issue.

Btw, the College of BIshops, whether dispersed or in the formal setting of an Ecum Council, have a similar universal authority as the Pope. So the keys are also obviously shared with them.

And yes, having the Keys given to one person does signify a principle of unity because you have one person to oversee that no one in authority is straying from the teachings of the Church.

Actually, this is the responsibility of every head bishop in his local Church primarily.

But that idea of unity does not prove in any way that the Keys were shared. If you are going to claim that the Keys were shared, I want your evidence that they were shared. Because I have yet to see in scripture or in ECF writings that it says that the Keys were shared.

Here’s a little-known fact:
The traditional Rite of Consecration of bishops in the Catholic Church until the 1960’s included the following:

“Give him, O Lord, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven… Whatsoever he shall bind
upon earth, let it be bound likewise in Heaven, and whatsoever he shall loose upon earth,
let it likewise be loosed in Heaven. Whose sins he shall retain, let them be retained, and
do Thou remit the sins of whomsoever he shall remit… Grant him, O Lord, an Episcopal
chair…”

It has always been the traditional position of the Catholic Church that bishops by virtue of their consecration share in the power of the keys. This is evident from the patristic witness as early as St. Cyprian. Nowadays, Absolutist Petrine advocates misinterpret the “Keys” as some unilateral papal prerogative that can be used against the rest of the bishops.

I’ll give you specific quotes from St. Cyprian and Pope St. Leo the Great when I have time to look them up.

Like I said before, Christ is spiritually present, but not physically in human form. If you deny this, then you claim that Jesus has made His second coming, which means that the end of the world truly is near (it is 2012 after all). This is what I mean by physically present. The fact that Christ is not here on Earth as a human to speak for all Christians and to tell what is utmost truth and who is right and wrong about everything.

If that is all you mean, that is fine. In your previous post to which I responded, you made it seem like only the Pope speaks for Christ, which is patently false - which is why I stressed that Christ is present in ALL that the Church does.

Blessings,
Marduk