Papal Prerogatives revisited

[jimmy]

Moreover, the powers conferred in these regards are plenary. This is plainly indicated by the generality of the terms employed: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind . . . Whatsoever thou shalt loose”; nothing is withheld. Further, Peter’s authority is subordinated to no earthly superior. The sentences which he gives are to be forthwith ratified in heaven. They do not need the antecedent approval of any other tribunal. He is independent of all save the Master who appointed him. The words as to the power of binding and loosing are, therefore, elucidatory of the promise of the keys which immediately precedes. They explain in what sense Peter is governor and head of Christ’s kingdom, the Church, by promising him legislative and judicial authority in the fullest sense. In other words, Peter and his successors have power to impose laws both preceptive and prohibitive, power likewise to grant dispensation from these laws, and, when needful, to annul them. It is theirs to judge offences against the laws, to impose and to remit penalties. This judicial authority will even include the power to pardon sin. For sin is a breach of the laws of the supernatural kingdom, and falls under the cognizance of its constituted judges. The gift of this particular power, however, is not expressed with full clearness in this passage. It needed Christ’s words (John 20:23) to remove all ambiguity. Further, since the Church is the kingdom of the truth, so that an essential note in all her members is the act of submission by which they accept the doctrine of Christ in its entirety, supreme power in this kingdom carries with it a supreme magisterium — authority to declare that doctrine and to prescribe a rule of faith obligatory on all. Here, too, Peter is subordinated to none save his Master alone; he is the supreme teacher as he is the supreme ruler. However, the tremendous powers thus conferred are limited in their scope by their reference to the ends of the kingdom and to them only. The authority of Peter and his successors does not extend beyond this sphere. With matters that are altogether extrinsic to the Church they are not concerned.
…
In the Constitution “Pastor Aeternus”, cap. 3, the pope is declared to possess ordinary, immediate, and episcopal jurisdiction over all the faithful:

We teach, moreover, and declare that, by the disposition of God, the Roman Church possesses supreme ordinary authority over all Churches, and that the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is true episcopal jurisdiction is immediate in its character (Enchir., n. 1827).
​

 

[jimmy]

It is further added that this authority extends to all alike, both pastors and faithful, whether singly or collectively. An ordinary jurisdiction is one which is exercised by the holder, not by reason of any delegation, but in virtue of the office which he himself holds. All who acknowledge in the pope any primacy of jurisdiction acknowledge that jurisdiction to be ordinary. This point, therefore, does not call for discussion. That the papal authority is likewise immediate has, however, been called in question. Jurisdiction is immediate when its possessor stands in direct relation to those with whose oversight he is charged. If, on the other hand, the supreme authority can only deal directly with the proximate superiors, and not with the subjects save through their intervention, his power is not immediate but mediate. That the pope’s jurisdiction is not thus restricted appears from the analysis already given of Christ’s words to St. Peter. It has been shown that He conferred on him a primacy over the Church, which is universal in its scope, extending to all the Church’s members, and which needs the support of no other power. A primacy such as this manifestly gives to him and to his successors a direct authority over all the faithful. This is also implied in the words of the pastoral commission, “Feed my sheep”. The shepherd exercises immediate authority over all the sheep of his flock. Every member of the Church has been thus committed to Peter and those who follow him.

This immediate authority has been always claimed by the Holy See. It was, however, denied by Febronius (op. cit., 7:7). That writer contended that the duty of the pope was to exercise a general oversight over the Church and to direct the bishops by his counsel; in case of necessity, where the legitimate pastor was guilty of grave wrong, he could pronounce sentence of excommunication against him and proceed against him according to the canons, but he could not on his own authority depose him (op. cit., 2:4:9). The Febronian doctrines, though devoid of any historical foundation, yet, through their appeal to the spirit of nationalism, exerted a powerful influence for harm on Catholic life in Germany during the eighteenth and part of the nineteenth century. Thus it was imperative that the error should be definitively condemned. That the pope’s power is truly episcopal needs no proof. It follows from the fact that he enjoys an ordinary pastoral authority, both legislative and judicial, and immediate in relation to its subjects. Moreover, since this power regards the pastors as well as the faithful, the pope is rightly termed Pastor pastorum, and Episcopus episcoporum.

 

[jimmy]

It is frequently objected by writers of the Anglican school that, by declaring the pope to possess an immediate episcopal jurisdiction over all the faithful, the Vatican Council destroyed the authority of the diocesan episcopate. It is further pointed out that St. Gregory the Great expressly repudiated this title (Epistle 7:27 and Epistle 8:30). To this it is replied that no difficulty is involved in the exercise of immediate jurisdiction over the same subjects by two rulers, provided only that these rulers stand in subordination, the one to the other. We constantly see the system at work. In an army the regimental officer and the general both possess immediate authority over the soldiers; yet no one maintains that the inferior authority is thereby annulled. The objection lacks all weight. The Vatican Council says most justly (cap. iii):
This power of the supreme pontiff in no way derogates from the ordinary immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, in virtue of which the bishops, who, appointed by the Holy Spirit Acts 20:28], have succeeded to the place of the Apostles as true pastors, feed and rule their several flocks, each the one which has been assigned to him: that power is rather maintained, confirmed and defended by the supreme pastor (Enchir., n. 1828).
It is without doubt true that St. Gregory repudiated in strong terms the title of universal bishop, and relates that St. Leo rejected it when it was offered him by the fathers of Chalcedon. But, as he used it, it has a different signification from that with which it was employed in the Vatican Council. St. Gregory understood it as involving the denial of the authority of the local diocesan (Epistle 5:21). No one, he maintains, has a right so to term himself universal bishop as to usurp that apostolically constituted power. But he was himself a strenuous asserter of that immediate jurisdiction over all the faithful which is signified by this title as used in the Vatican Decree. Thus he reverses (Epistle 6:15) a sentence passed on a priest by Patriarch John of Constantinople, an act which itself involves a claim to universal authority, and explicitly states that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See (Epistle 9:12). The title of universal bishop occurs as early as the eighth century; and in 1413 the faculty of Paris rejected the proposition of John Hus that the pope was not universal bishop (Natalis Alexander, “Hist. eccl.”, saec. XV and XVI, c. ii, art. 3, n. 6)

 

[jimmy]

THat was from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Pope. It reveals the interpretation of the VI council, atleast from a western perspective. It shows us that the authority of the pope is absolute and there is no restriction on it. He is the bishop of bishops. In relationship to the bishops, he is as a General is to a Captain in the military.

The EWTN article on the Nature of Papal Primacy has some good points as well.

ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/papab3.htm

 

[Hesychios]

Yes, they can make that determination. Who says they can’t? …

This entire post was a disappointment.

 

[Vico]

…

IF ANYONE SAYS that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: LET HIM BE ANATHEMA

BTW, ‘immediate’ in the text above means ‘un-mediated’, as in ‘nothing in between’ or ‘direct’. Are you of the opinion that it never did happen, never will happen and is not possible?

…

The CIC (1983) contains Canon 331 and the equivalent in the Eastern Code is CCEO (1990) Canon 43:

“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.”

This is not a personal opinion – there is much written about this topic in: New commentary on the Code of Canon Law By John P. Beal, James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, p. 443, P. 431.

Such as that there are two hierarchies of orders and jurisdiction where that of orders has precedence over that of jurisdiction:

hierarchy of orders (Bishop is highest)
hierarchy of jurisdiction (Pope is highest)

Bishop of Rome has ministry of:

1. sanctification (as Bishop)
2. teaching (supreme pastor, as Bishop) the Universal Church
3. governing the Universal Church

And bishops have the ministry of:

1. sanctification (as Bishop)
2. teaching (as Bishop) the Church sui iuris
3. governing the Church sui iuris

The bishops power occurs through sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the Pope (Bishop of Rome), and that communion requires acceptance of the jurisdictional authority of the Pope. The rules of authority are established by the Pope.

See CIC (1983) Canon 336 and explanatory note of Lumen Gentium. Bishops are not successors of a definite apostle, but are placed on the level of apostles. (Lumen Gentium 20c.) They govern their particular churches under the authority of the Pope.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

THat was from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Pope. It reveals the interpretation of the VI council, atleast from a western perspective. It shows us that the authority of the pope is absolute and there is no restriction on it.

Even after you provided this quote…

It is frequently objected by writers of the Anglican school that, by declaring the pope to possess an immediate episcopal jurisdiction over all the faithful, the Vatican Council destroyed the authority of the diocesan episcopate. It is further pointed out that St. Gregory the Great expressly repudiated this title (Epistle 7:27 and Epistle 8:30). To this it is replied that no difficulty is involved in the exercise of immediate jurisdiction over the same subjects by two rulers, provided only that these rulers stand in subordination, the one to the other. We constantly see the system at work. In an army the regimental officer and the general both possess immediate authority over the soldiers; yet no one maintains that the inferior authority is thereby annulled. The objection lacks all weight. The Vatican Council says most justly (cap. iii):

This power of the supreme pontiff in no way derogates from the ordinary immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, in virtue of which the bishops, who, appointed by the Holy Spirit [Acts 20:28], have succeeded to the place of the Apostles as true pastors, feed and rule their several flocks, each the one which has been assigned to him: that power is rather maintained, confirmed and defended by the supreme pastor (Enchir., n. 1828).

It is without doubt true that St. Gregory repudiated in strong terms the title of universal bishop, and relates that St. Leo rejected it when it was offered him by the fathers of Chalcedon. But, as he used it, it has a different signification from that with which it was employed in the Vatican Council. St. Gregory understood it as involving the denial of the authority of the local diocesan (Epistle 5:21). No one, he maintains, has a right so to term himself universal bishop as to usurp that apostolically constituted power.

…you still claim that the authority of the Pope is absolute?

If he has no right to usurp the authority of his brother bishops, his own authority cannot possibly be absolute.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

This entire post was a disappointment.

Why?

Is it because I cannot agree with you that the Pope is an absolute monarch?

Is it because I cannot agree with your assumption that his brother bishops have no voice in the Church?

IIRC, in the 11th century, the protest of an Abbot from France was sufficient to prevent a Pope from conceding the title of “ecumenical Patriarch” to the Patriarch of Constantinople. How much more clout would one of his brother bishops afford?

Blessings

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother Jimmy,

Even after you provided this quote…

…you still claim that the authority of the Pope is absolute?

If he has no right to usurp the authority of his brother bishops, his own authority cannot possibly be absolute.

Blessings

THat in no way limits his authority. As the quote says in several other places, his authority is absolute. All it says is that the bishop is a divinely ordained office. But that doesn’t hinder the authority of the pope. The bishop is a subordinate to the pope as a Captain is of a General in the military. The article itself uses this analogy. There is no conflict of authority precisely because the bishop is subordinated to the pope. For this reason there is no conflict of jurisdiction.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

THat in no way limits his authority. As the quote says in several other places, his authority is absolute. All it says is that the bishop is a divinely ordained office. But that doesn’t hinder the authority of the pope. The bishop is a subordinate to the pope as a Captain is of a General in the military. The article itself uses this analogy. There is no conflict of authority precisely because the bishop is subordinated to the pope. For this reason there is no conflict of jurisdiction.

And what are the practical ramifications of this statement?

Do you mean by this that the Pope on his whim and fancy has the authority to depose a bishop, or to destroy the Traditions of the Eastern or Oriental Churches? Please respond.

Do you mean by this that a bishop’s authority is insufficient to rule his own diocese (i.e., that he is a co-ruler with the Pope)? Please respond.

As your quote explicitly states, “yet no one maintains that the inferior authority is thereby annulled.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother Jimmy,

And what are the practical ramifications of this statement?

Do you mean by this that the Pope on his whim and fancy has the authority to depose a bishop, or to destroy the Traditions of the Eastern or Oriental Churches? Please respond.

Do you mean by this that a bishop’s authority is insufficient to rule his own diocese (i.e., that he is a co-ruler with the Pope)? Please respond.

As your quote explicitly states, “yet no one maintains that the inferior authority is thereby annulled.”

Blessings,
Marduk

There is no limit on the popes authority. Not one limit. You point to statements like the fact that universal bishop as it is assumed by Rome doesn’t negate the divine institution of the episcopacy, but the fact is that there is no limit on the popes claim to authority and the canons state this clearly when they say that his authority is unhindered. The pope has free reign to do as he will. When the pope steps in is up to his discretion.

The papacy is the supreme authority (whether he exercises it on his own or collegially) of the Church and the supreme authority of the Church has the right to supress rites, so from that we can gather that the pope has the authority to do as he sees fit with the various traditions.

No one claims that the authority of a Captain is annulled when the General steps in and over rules him. The only thing preventing the Church from making a new level of ordination is the distinction between sacrament and jurisdiction. The sacramental character is what is proper to ordination, jurisdiction is a delegation from the papacy. The sacramental character of the bishop makes him a source in the Church of the whole sacramental order, but he still has no authority of jurisdiction unless it is delegated from Rome. And Rome determines the level of authority that he holds. If this distinction did not exist you could essentially say there was a whole new level of ordination called the papacy that has universal jurisdiction rather than jurisdiction in a particular diocese.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

There is no limit on the popes authority. Not one limit. You point to statements like the fact that universal bishop as it is assumed by Rome doesn’t negate the divine institution of the episcopacy, but the fact is that there is no limit on the popes claim to authority and the canons state this clearly when they say that his authority is unhindered. The pope has free reign to do as he will. When the pope steps in is up to his discretion.

Ahhhh, yes. I knew it would eventuallly come down to this. The statement from V1 and in the canons that state that the Pope exercises his prerogatives “unhindered.” This is, in fact, the sole rationale that both naysayers of the papacy and Catholic papalists contend is the justification for their common position. I have explained and refuted this in numerous previous threads dealing with the same topic, and not one - including you - has ever been able to respond. Canon law states that if there is a seeming ambiguity in a term, “there must be recourse to parallel places” in canon law. The fact is, the term “unhindered” does not refer to laissez faire exercise of authority. Rather, it refers to the fact that the Pope’s exercise of authority is UNCOERCED - i.e., it is exercised with the use of free will. This is the consistent meaning of the word “unhindered” everywhere in canon law, and it will take more than the exaggerated presuppositions of anti-papal and papalist extremists to impugn the truth of the matter.

Here is what the Commentary on the New Code states regarding the term “unhindered”:
“The Pope can always freely exercise this power. For centuries this has been expressed in this or a similar way…Because of its history it still contains an unmistakable, final prupose directed against the civil power. In the current world order, the matter is significant inasmuch as the pope or Apostolic See is recognized as a subject of international law…”

The papacy is the supreme authority (whether he exercises it on his own or collegially) of the Church and the supreme authority of the Church has the right to supress rites, so from that we can gather that the pope has the authority to do as he sees fit with the various traditions.

First, the supreme authority of an Ecumenical Council is different from the supreme authority of the papacy. Here is what the Commentary on the New Code states:
“**This superlative * gives the impression that the pope’s power is unique. This impression is not correct, however, since according to the current law the college of bishops possesses ‘supreme…power over the the universal Church.’*”

The supreme authority of an Ecumenical Council is a collegial authority. The Code does not define which “Supreme Authority” can make necessary changes to the discipline of the Church. Only a papalist mindset would automatically assign to the Pope every single action which it is really and properly an Ecumenical Council’s prerogative to perform.

Second, can you please give us the canon that states the Pope has the authority to suppress the Rites of the Church? I know the Pope in the past has suppressed a Rite that fell into disuse, but I am not aware that a Pope has ever suppressed a Rite that was living and active. I suspect this is just another example of interpretative license on your part, but I’m willing to be corrected.

No one claims that the authority of a Captain is annulled when the General steps in and over rules him.

That is exactly what happens when a General steps in. This betrays the weakness of your dependance on the secular analogy. When a General steps in, the Captain’s authority is no longer his own, but it becomes a delegated authority. That can happen in the secular sphere. But that cannot happen in the ecclesiological sphere because a bishop’s authority is by divine right, which a Pope can never annul - unless, of course, the bishop becomes a public heretic or scandal.

The only thing preventing the Church from making a new level of ordination is the distinction between sacrament and jurisdiction. The sacramental character is what is proper to ordination, jurisdiction is a delegation from the papacy. The sacramental character of the bishop makes him a source in the Church of the whole sacramental order, but he still has no authority of jurisdiction unless it is delegated from Rome. And Rome determines the level of authority that he holds.

Can you please give us a canon that states this? I’m pretty sure each Patriarch has this prerogative. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I’ll just chalk this up to yet another example of interpretative license.

BTW, in case you did not know, the power of orders (sanctifying, teaching, governing) is greater than the power of jurisdiction. Even if the Pope has the power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, he cannot thereby annul the power of orders of the bishops which is by divine right.

If this distinction did not exist you could essentially say there was a whole new level of ordination called the papacy that has universal jurisdiction rather than jurisdiction in a particular diocese.

I don’t exactly know what you mean by this, but universal “jurisdiction” was established by Christ Himself through St. Peter. It was Christ who set one servant over His household, and predicted that this office would exist when He returns. I don’t know how the Orthodox not in communion with Rome or the Protestants can oppose Christ’s own order for His Church.

Blessings**

 

[JohnVIII]

There is no limit on the popes authority. Not one limit. You point to statements like the fact that universal bishop as it is assumed by Rome doesn’t negate the divine institution of the episcopacy, but the fact is that there is no limit on the popes claim to authority and the canons state this clearly when they say that his authority is unhindered. The pope has free reign to do as he will. When the pope steps in is up to his discretion.

I agree with [user]jimmy[/user]. That is, I agree that this is clearly what the Roman Catholic Church has taught for ages with regard to the authority of the Pope.

Dear brother Jimmy,

And what are the practical ramifications of this statement?

Do you mean by this that the Pope on his whim and fancy has the authority to depose a bishop, or to destroy the Traditions of the Eastern or Oriental Churches? Please respond.

Do you mean by this that a bishop’s authority is insufficient to rule his own diocese (i.e., that he is a co-ruler with the Pope)?

Any bishop in communion with the Pope is a bishop that has a bishop. The bishop of that bishop is the Pope. Just as a bishop has full authority over those within his jurisdiction, the Pope has FULL authority over any bishop that is in communion with him. So, of course the Pope may “on his whim and fancy … depose a bishop, or to destroy the Traditions of the Eastern or Oriental Churches”

Is a bishop’s authority insufficient to rule his own diocese? Yes, if we are talking about a bishop that is in communion with the Pope.

Having said this though, it is also true that the Pope has generously permitted several self-ruling jurisdictions to exist so that it is possible for those who don’t agree completely with the full authority of the Pope to nevertheless exist in communion with the Pope.

When I joined the Roman Catholic Church I made it very clear that I did not believe in supremacy of the Pope and if that was an impediment to my joining then I would not join. I was allowed to join, and I did become Roman Catholic. Later on I come to believe that although it is possible to become Roman Catholic without excepting the authority of the Pope, it is not ethical. For this (and a few other reasons) I returned to the Eastern Orthodox (not in communion with the Pope). If I ever return to the Roman Catholic Church I will, for the sake of my own conscience, have to first learn to except the Popes full authority. This is a personal choice on my part, and I don’t judge anyone who can choose with a clear conscience to be in communion with the Pope in whatever way they may choose to justify it, should they not fully except the authority of the Pope. The Pope allows this by economy.

But I still don’t believe that there were Popes nor do I think there were Patriarchs from the early days of the Church. I think the very reason the bishop of Rome called himself “Pope” was originally to get others to NOT think so highly of him. “Pope” just means “father”, as you might call your priest in your local parish. I think when the term Patriarch was first used it implied a greater authority than that of “Pope”. But, the meaning of words do change over time!

 

[WatchingMedia]

Instead of arguing, why don’t you just read the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” first printed in the US in March 2000 ?

Of course then there are those who want to argue with the Pope and the US Bishops.
To those I say, rather than being a heretic, - Why do you profess to be Catholic when you are not?

 

[Contarini]

There is no limit on the popes authority. Not one limit. You point to statements like the fact that universal bishop as it is assumed by Rome doesn’t negate the divine institution of the episcopacy, but the fact is that there is no limit on the popes claim to authority and the canons state this clearly when they say that his authority is unhindered. The pope has free reign to do as he will. When the pope steps in is up to his discretion.

A great service would be done to ecumenism–or at least to clarity in ecumenism–if someone would forward this statement to the Vatican. If the Pope were to solemnly anathematize the position expressed here by jimmy, then the hindrances to the reunion of Christians would be greatly lessened.

But until something like that happens, the rest of the Christian world is going to worry that well-meaning folks like mardukm are indeed just “spinning” the position of the Roman Communion.

The view of the Church that jimmy quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, in which the Pope is to bishops as a general is to lower officers in an army, is plainly contrary to the ecclesiology of the early Church. If this is the ecclesiology of the Roman Communion, then the Roman Communion is heretical. And until this is plainly stated by the Vatican, all the modifying and softening it can do is not going to convince the Orthodox (or even convince Anglicans like me, with less deep-rooted prejudices against Rome) to return to union with Rome.

Edwin

 

[WatchingMedia]

Check your Bible. Jesus made Peter the head of the Church, not all the other Apostles along with him.

There is only one head of the Catholic Church, and that is the Pope.
This line of succession is why the Church has lasted 2000 years, and keeps on going in spite of human frailness and controversies.

Again, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition for accurate Catholic beliefs on Faith and Morals including the definition of Pope.

It is my personal opinion that as long as “some” Protestant churches continue to preach in favor of abortion, divorce, and gay sexual activity, then there will be no ecumenism with those sects.
Those churches are not even living up to their own Bible Sola Sriptura or their founding fathers.

Also, everyone - don’t believe everything you read by writers on any religious blog. If you want facts, ask a trained Apologist.
Check out facts yourself. Catholics have published their required beliefs for all to see.
Most people are doing their very best to be helpful, a minority are just try to confuse.

 

[Contarini]

Check your Bible. Jesus made Peter the head of the Church, not all the other Apostles along with him.

I’m not a sola scriptura Protestant, and obviously neither are you. So this is really a pointless argument, don’t you think?

Apart from whether or not your argument works on sola scriptura grounds (I don’t think it is more than probable at best), my point is that the ecclesiology described by jimmy is clearly incompatible with the practice and faith of the early Church. Bishops in the early Church acted in ways that would be completely unthinkable coming from subordinate officers toward a general. It just wasn’t like that.

And with regard to the exegesis, many of the Fathers *did *believe that all bishops were successors of Peter.

There is only one head of the Catholic Church, and that is the Pope.

 

[Hesychios]

… If I ever return to the Roman Catholic Church I will, for the sake of my own conscience, have to first learn to except the Popes full authority. …

This is precisely my position.

I will not ever again be a member of and worship in a church hypocritically.

 

[WatchingMedia]

Jesus is our God. (Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit)

If you want to know about Jesus and the Apostles, you will have to read the Bible. If you don’t believe in the Bible, then this whole conversation is pointless, and your sect would most likely not be included in eccumenism ie the sect supporting gay sexual activity, divorce, and abortion.

The Pope the earthly leader of the Catholic Church - a human being just like Peter.

Again if you want facts regarding Catholic Church, read it from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
Since you are not Catholic, here is a web site.
usccb.org/catechism/text/

Since there are over 900 pages, it is difficult not to take things out of context.
Look under definitions pg 891 under “Papacy”, and pg 893 “Pope”.

I am and have publically registered myself as a Catholic. And I do try to be as accurate as possible.

 

[Contarini]

I believe in the Bible. I don’t believe in the fundamentalist Protestant view of the Bible which holds that simply quoting a prooftext is enough to establish a doctrine without any regard to the history of interpretation and other similar issues.

Edwin