95.X.13. gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu (Randal Lee Mandock) wrote: [...] :>Does the Bible teach that "the Sacrifice of the Calvary is being :>renewed under the manner of the Last Supper?" :Yes. I had in mind You may have understood it as a question: ? The distinction is of great importance, because this expression annoys most Protestants, as if Catholics taught that the Calvary isn't a completed, ever-valid, ever-fresh, unique, unrepeatable act of atonement and the only way to God but it has to be "renewed" in the Eucharist. That is, it does not remind US of the cross, but it reminds the FATHER. As if Catholics believed that the cross fades over the years, and God tends to view us with less compassion and love unless we perform a religious act to refreshen the sacrifice. :>I don't want to convince any Catholic of the erroneousness of the former, :>because they think that the Bible is to be interpreted according to the :>unanimous agreement of the Fathers, who, in turn, used the Bible to :>support their interpretation. :The unanimous agreement of all Church Fathers who spoke to a given :doctrine is only *one* type of criterion which is used as evidence that :the doctrine is to be believed with "divine and Catholic faith." :There are others, foremost among them the record of Scripture. I thought you would understand my point even if I saved the effort of typing these three words: "I don't want to convince any Catholic of..." So the matter isn't whether or not the only criterion in deciding what is dogmatically compulsory is the unanimous agreement of all Church Fathers on that subject. I just realized that I ought not to quote certain passages from the Bible, and the reason of this decision is that my Catholic opponents are so accustomed to interpreting it according to the Fathers, that my dissenting opinion would seem to them as "denying what is written". Meanwhile the Fathers apparently reached out for proof to the Bible and not to their own "unanimous agreement" on it. In my opinion this obvious difference suggests that there is an invisible second canon in operation when one begins to study Scripture. And as no one can really understand the Old Testament without interpreting it in the light of the New One, likewise, the Catholic conviction about the necessity of Tradition at least implies that the former two Testaments shed less light if they are not subjected to the fixed viewpoint of the RCC. --------------------------------------------------------- :>Maybe I don't see what is obvious: why do we need the "renewed sacrifice" :>to have our sins forgiven if they are already forgiven, provided that we :>are righteous as a result of the cross? :Who says that they are already forgiven? Among others, Jesus: Mt 9:2,6 10:32 18:15 18:26,27,32 Lk 7:36-50 15:21,24 18:13,14 23:42,43 Jn 3:18 5:24 6:47 8:11 8:24 8:51 11:25,26 : Mine are not. Those of my Catholic friends are not. Not, that is, :until they are sacramentally absolved by penance. A legal category. Compared to the above scriptures, it seems sophisticated, meticulous, pharisaic, man-made and institutional. I know about the scriptures "whatever you bind on earth..." and "Whose sins you forgive...", but let you also realize that "I don't say seven times but even 70*7 times". So the "priestly" duty of forgiving has to rest upon the total submission to God who forgives "70*7 times", and not exercised as a legal function or even worse, as controlling God: putting unbearable burdens on people and maintaining that it's God's will. :The sacrifice of the cross re-presented daily all over the :world (Mal 1:11) makes this forgiveness possible. No. The once and forever accomplished sacrifice of the cross makes possible that we are forgiven by God. (Eph 1:7) And as for Mal 1:11, I give two reasons to disbelieve in what you said: (1) It is not a prophecy but an exhortation. If it hadn't been referring to that time (too), the prophet would have been ridiculed by his contemporaries. And provided that it had a meaning for the Jews then, without any New Testament reference, your interpretation seems an extreme case of prooftexting. (2) Incense, that is, praise (You wrote: Cf. Rv 8:3-4.) is a sacrifice that every believer can offer, hopefully. Then, based on this scripture, either Eucharist can be "consecrated" or offered by everyone (as praise can be), or it is not so real and true sacrifice as Catholics maintain (as praise isn't). ---------------------------------------------------------------- :>I consider the passage from John "unless :>you eat my flesh..." as the nourishment of the new man in us, and :>not as a means of expiatory event in order to cover the works of the :>corrupt nature which is once for all buried in the immersion. :His flesh is real food and His blood real drink - it indeed :nourishes him who feeds on it. Provided that he is worthy... so how can we apply it to the forgiveness of sins? :The sacrifice of the Mass is not an expiatory event that :covers sins, as the scapegoat ceremony may have been for :the Israelites, but rather it reminds God of Christ's :worthy sacrifice on the cross in the manner of the Last :Supper, the beginning of His passion. I guess you have some scriptural support for this theory... (Reminding God of the sacrifice) --------------------------------------------------------- :> ON THE CONTRARY, NO ONE CAN EAT FROM THE LORD'S SUPPER :>WITH PROFIT UNLESS HE HAS A GOOD CONSCIENCE. Good conscience comes from :>repentance. It contradicts your words about "application of sacrifice." :No, it doesn't. Catholics must review their conscience on :the way to the altar so that they may guard against eating :judgment on themselves (1 Cor 11:23-32). In answer to this, I'd like to enclose a small theorem here: #0. Question: How can I have my sins forgiven? #1. Suppose that you are right: :if there were no renewal of the sacrifice of Calvary under :the manner of the Last Supper as taught by the Gospels and St. Paul, :then the application of Christ's one, eternal :sacrifice to the forgiveness of sins of individuals here and :now would not be accomplished and we would still be in our sins. So the answer is: by applying the Eucharist to our sins. #2. Question: Is any obstacle in the way of partaking in the Eucharist? Let the Scripture speak: "So that whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty in respect of the body and the blood of the Lord." (1Cor 11:27) a) Can't the "renewal of the sacrifice" be "applied" to the sins in a way which doesn't include eating and drinking it? Answer: No. We have to use a lemma now. "Unless you shall have eaten the flesh of the Son of man, and drunk his blood, you have no life in yourselves." (John 6:53) According to the Catholic doctrine, it refers to the Eucharist, where we eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, so we partake of the whole Christ in the most real way. b) Question: what does "unworthy" mean? (After having read D 880) Answer: For the strictness of the proof let us say only that "in the state of unclean conscience" or "having committed some kind of sin". More meticulous definition isn't needed for the proof, and this one isn't too superficial to ruin it if replaced with a more precise one. #3. But how can one be worthy? Using the previous definition, the answer is: "By having his conscience cleansed or having his sins forgiven." #4. The next question: How can one get rid of bad conscience in a permitted way, or how can one have his sins forgiven? Remark: Let's realize that Question #4 is the same as Question #0. Thus the train of thought becomes circular. Conclusion: However rapidly can I make my way round the steps [0]->[1]->[2]->[3]->[4]=[0], my whole life isn't enough to achieve my goal, that is, forgiveness of sins, with your method. ------------------------------------------------------------------ :>? Decree for the Jacobites :>? The holy Roman Church believes, professes and preaches that "no one :>? remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews :>? or heretics or , can become partakers of eternal life; but :>? they will go to "the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil :>? and his angels", unless before the end of life they are joined to the :>? Church... [D 714] TCT : ...and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so : strong that only to those remaining in it are the : sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation... : and that no one...can be saved, unless he has remained : in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. :All of these quotations from the Bull "Cantada Domino," :on 4 Feb 1441, add up to two conclusions: :(1) Heretical _ideas_ were condemned, They should be condemned, I don't question it either. :(2) persons who *left* the Church to pursue heretical doctrines :were excommunicated from the sacraments; :i.e., from the life of the Church. Wait a minute. Do you have in mind the following ones? ! no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just <>, ! but also <> or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers ! of eternal life... Did the Church "excommunicate" (as you put it) pagans? Or Jews? When, I beg you tell me, were they Catholics? For, as you affirm, " this decree [D 714] *only* applies to those who _had been_ Catholics, " but who had then left the faith for whatever reason... ------------------------------------------------------------------ :I challenge you to show how this conflicts with "current" Catholic :doctrine. See above. Concerning the word between quotation marks I'd say that the decree for the Jacobites conflicts with Vatican II, namely Nostra Aetate 4, saying: "And although the Church had become God's new people, no one should say "about the Jews that they are appointed to damnation or cursed by God, "or that it derives from the Scriptures. Let them who teach catechesis "or preach the word of God therefore be alert not to teach anything "which is contrary to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ. (trans. from Hungarian) The warning at least suggests that there were some people commissioned with the responsible service of teaching who used to teach this unchristlike conclusion (mentioned above). I am sure that the source of their error is in some way connected with the "coloured language" of the authoritative pronouncements of old, which had the basic aim of convincing, as you insist on it. And whoever compares the language of councils in the Middle Ages with that of Vatican II can testify that while the anathemas didn't reoccur, the whole attitude towards the dissenting opinion - which is amply reflected by the wording - has become milder with regards to the mentioning of possible consequences. To be concrete, no hellfire or eternal damnation are mentioned when the Council deals with the Jews or "pagans". (I am not sure whether this very word still applies.) I'll put this decree on your screen until you manage to say something about the Jews, schismatics, etc. going to everlasting fire. :Turning one's back on the faith is considered as serious an offense :against God today as it was five centuries ago. In theory, I agree. My concern is: To what extent did(n't) fulfill the criteria of "turning one's back on the faith" in the 17th century, and how does(n't) it mean that now? Don't make a haste in answering. You have dug up Unitatis Redintegratio, thus rid me of the effort of translating extensively from Hungarian... " ...However, one cannot charge with the sin of separation " those who at present are born into these communities and " in them [dissenting communities which had become separated " from full communion with the Catholic Church] are brought " up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts " them with respect and affection as brothers. Why did the Council write this? In the 17th century, having in mind the Orthodox Church (schism in 1054) this argument would have been valid, too. And yet the mutual excommunications were withdrawn only in this century! The 1st Vatican Council went on anathematizing those who reject the Trent canon of the Bible, among others most Protestants. But why, if once they were continally taught to do so? (thus "getting into the state of invincible ignorance") :I do not see the decree damning anyone, but merely warning heretics :of the folly of rejecting a faith they once embraced. If you think :that the Church has ever damned anyone by name to hell, produce the :evidence or retract your assertion. Excuse me... I'll use your post as source :-) " Therefore, of the one and only Church [there is] " one body, one head, not two heads as a monster, namely, Christ " and Peter, the Vicar of Christ and the successor of Peter, the " Lord Himself saying to Peter: "Feed my sheep" [John 21:17]. " He said "My," and generally, not individually these or those, " through which it is understood that He entrusted all to him... (Quotation from your posting) (Now I don't ridicule Boniface's attempt at introducing a new Comma Joanneum by teaching the "trinity but unity" of Christ, Peter and the pope. David Wagner has made some waspish remarks at it recently.) And now: This sentence is continued by a logical consequence what you carefully omitted from your posting: /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \ "If therefore the Greeks or others say that they are not committed / / to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are \ \ not the sheep of Christ, as the Lord says in John that there is one / / fold and one shepherd." (see Jn 10:16) \ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ (From TCT) Here you are. Quite obvious. No intermediate state ("semi-sheep") is suggested to be between the state of sheep and non-sheep. Furthermore, Boniface left no room for the later explanations including "not full communion", etc. OTOH, this sentence plainly contradicts your attempts at interpreting the most offensive sentence ("...subject to the Roman Pontiff") as one meaning that . No, this in Unam Sanctam goes the other way round: Notice that Boniface didn't even hint at being subject to him without knowing it; this statement simply wouldn't have been effective when applied to the pope's enemies. So he stressed the "submitting" side, as it is proven by the excerpt about "Greeks and others". (Nevertheless, due to the fact that I have been studying English for only 14 years by now, I might have missed some important details. I don't want to offend you but I'm really curious how you'll manage to explain it. Note that I don't blame you for these statements but rather I wonder how you can accept them.) :The most she has ever done is to excommunicate persons who cease to :be Catholic in their public profession of what they believe. And their followers born in dissented communities, too, even centuries after the "founder"'s death. : The purpose of colorful language in those days was to remind them :of the fate that might await them should they remain outside the body :of faith which they had previously sworn allegience to. No matter to whom these utterances apply, it's all the same detestable how popes used to exploit Europe misusing their "spiritual primacy". This language was a means of intimidation, of banning the opposing conviction, thus a blood-covered "spiritual sword". And let me remind you of "Greeks or others" and "Jews and pagans". In what way did they swear allegiance to the Church or the pope? Maybe implicitely through accepting the creed or by the keeping the Old Testament or because they believe in an "unknown god" respectively? In this case, when did they cease to do so, that the pope "had to" "excommunicate" them? :>Saying that the sacraments are of NO effect outside the Catholic Church :>ruins half of Unitatis Redintegratio. :How so? The decree was addressing only the sacraments that are repeatable, :not those that cannot be repeated. TCT didn't have a comment on this. How should I have known it? :Besides, as I said above, the sacrament of Eucharist most certainly :*is* of benefit to those outside the Catholic Church because all are :_able_ to be nourished in faith as a consequence of it. But alas, Protestants, having no valid apostolic priesthood, cannot participate in the "application of the sacrifice" of Calvary to the forgiveness of sins, because D 2300 testifies that only the priest is appointed to offer the "sacrifice of Mass" in its fullness; so they are still in their sins. Or have I misunderstood your words? Once again: first you argue for the necessity of the "sacrifice of Mass" in forgiveness of sins. Then again you testify that the reason why the Church is necessary for salvation is that the "sacrifice of Mass" is validly offered there. Then you make a 180 degree turn, and say that they are all able to be nourished in faith as a consequence of it. But how on earth can it be, if they are still in their sins, before it, during it and after it? Theologically: is the Lord's Supper celebrated by the Protestants really the ("transsubstantiated") flesh and blood of Christ? Unitatis Redintegratio 22: "According to our belief, they [dissented western communities] haven't "preserved unviolately - mainly because the lack of Holy Orders - the "full richness of the mystery of Eucharist. In the Lord's Supper they, "nevertheless, remember the death and the resurrection of the Lord: "thus confessing that it means life-giving communion with Christ, and "they look forward to His glorious coming. (trans. from Hungarian) (Context: what can play the role of the subjects on which Catholics can begin a dialogue with the dissented western communities, and not the "validity" of the Protestant celebration. Once a priest told me that one can't apply the word "valid" or "invalid" to it, for it is not a intended to be a sacrifice at all.) Remember also "Whoever doesn't eat my flesh..." :And note that Unitatis Redintegratio n. 3 says: : ...However, one cannot charge with the sin of separation : those who at present are born into these communities and : in them [dissenting communities which had become separated : from full communion with the Catholic Church] are brought : up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts : them with respect and affection as brothers. It's one of the most valuable testimonies of Vatican II showing that some doctrines can be taught with a slightly "different emphasis" than formerly. Surely you are convinced that there is no change in dogmas, and try to prove it with this quotation. But I, who see not only "different emphasis" but serious changes in application of the dogmas (eg. ecumenism - what prevented the RCC in greeting it around 1920?), so I would only see my suspicions (about the changing dogmas) be justified when reading your excerpt. : For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put : in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.. Did Trent emphasize this imperfect communion? (I really don't know.) : But even in spite of them [serious obstacles to : unity] it remains true that all who have been justified : by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ [Council : of Florence, session 8, 1439, Denzinger 695-696]; they : therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with : good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of : the Catholic Church.... In the times of Donatist error, as I know, the matter was whether re-baptism was necessary for former heretics. Or did Augustine write sg about accepting heretics as brethren? : For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as : means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very : fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church. The beginning of Unam Sanctam: "We are compelled by virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that "there is one Catholic [1] Church, and one apostolic. This we firmly "believe and profess without qualification. Outside this [2] Church "there is no salvation [3] and no remission of sins... "...For at the time of the deluge there existed only one [4] ark, the "figure of the one [5] Church. This ark received its final touch by one "cubit's provision, and had but one [6] pilot and captain, that is, Noe. "And we read that all [7] things existing upon the earth outside [8] "this [9] ark perished..." [10] Remarks: [1,5,9] He is speaking about the Catholic Church. [2,4,6] This Church is prefigured by Noah's ark. [3,7,8,10] No one outside the Catholic Church has salvation. Questions: (1) Who is prefigured by Noah? (2) Did the times change in such a vigorous way that this solemn warning towards those who exist outside the "ark" shouldn't be repeated anymore? (Did the flood pass?) (3) Has the great ark since then "launch" small arks that derive their efficacy in the missionary work from her? (Can excommunication be interpreted with this simile?) :> The Church Teaches (Documents of the Church in English translation) :> TAN Books and Publishers, 1973. :I should think that a beginner at Catholicism would benefit :more from the more authoritative 1992 Catechism than from a :Jesuit textbook in dogmatic theology. Why not have a look at it? The reasons are simple: Maybe it tries to conceal some details of which the Church is in a certain way "ashamed", saying "reviving anathemas wouldn't serve the common good". But I ask: if (un)religious indifference has grown so high, why doesn't the pope remind these reluctant people of their future fate awaiting them if they don't return to the bosom of the Church? :>Whether or not this book was committed by its authors to resist the :>spirit of Vatican II, I can't decide, but it has an imprimatur etc. :There is *nothing* :contained in that Jesuit textbook. I assure you that :you will be unable to prove otherwise. I'm struggling with this issue, as you can see from my post... :>Do you think seriously that such a subtle sentence would make any :>effect on worldly authorities? By no means, I am convinced. :Yes, I agree with you that those 15th-century popes felt :the need to spice up the rhetoric in some of their teaching :documents. The Catholic popes have always striven to adapt :the language of official documents to the times in which :they lived. So, please, offer some modern equivalents for "eternal fire" awaiting "Jews and pagans", and the "Greeks or others" "not being Christ's sheep". Be careful: I repeated my challenge not without a cause. First I did so (some screens ago) because I questioned your assertion that they swore allegiance to the Catholic Church, but now I ask you to rephrase these rhetoric expressions according to the present age's wording. And please, don't quote here Vatican II about "not full communion", etc. I require something including the word "salvation" of you. :I tried to explain something away? Me? Membership *by Catholics* in :the Catholic Church *is* necessary for salvation. It always has been. *By Catholics*? See my problems with "Greeks or others", etc. :Write back again after you have reviewed Pope Pius XI's 1873 encyclical :_Etsi multa luctuosa_ on the "Twofold Power on Earth" (wherein Pius quotes :Tertullian as saying, "...for he [Caesar] himself belongs to Him to whom :belong heaven and every creature), a statement of the second theory :of how power is conferred. Sorry, I haven't read it before posting this article. I don't have it at home, but as soon as I have access to it, I'll study it. :In addition to this, you ought to educate yourself about the subject of :invincible ignorance. To this end, I assign you the task of reading :TCT 173-175, found on pp. 80-81 of this book. I digested it. The pope didn't dare to estimate the boundaries of that ignorance, and referred to the variety of nations, etc. But this argument fails to be valid when it comes to the communication of truth exercised by the Catholic Church when trying to dissolve this ignorance. Her pronouncements have made clear over the centuries that Protestants aren't invincibly ignorant, because many of their teachings were condemned as heretical. Do you think this left them in the state of invincible ignorance? (see below the phrase "oppose the definitions") :Read as well TCT 178 on p. 82, which warns that liberal indifferentism :is a serious error opposed to Catholic truth and explains in additional :detail the true meaning of "no salvation outside the Church." After having had a look at it, I still feel my concerns unresolved. For it speaks about the same as Unam Sanctam, save that the words "stubbornly remain separated from the unity of the Church and from the successor of Peter" and "obstinately oppose the authority and definitions of that Church" are added. But isn't it the very thing what Protestants do all the time? From the letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing of Boston, 1949: "Therefore, no one who knows that the Church has been divinely "established by Christ and, nevertheless, refuses to be a subject "of the Church and refuses to obey the Roman Pontiff, the vicar "of Christ on earth, will be saved. (TCT p.119, paragraph 271) It's a try to reconcile Unam Sanctam with the demand of changing times. But whom does the Holy Office refer to? Who are so stupid that although they know about the divine institution of the pope's primacy, they deny it with their acts? If they accept that Peter is their visible head, why should they neglect it? Or am I to take "knowing" in another, wider sense as "having heard of"? Then clearly it can be extended to the Protestants without qualification. :By the way, what makes you the judge of whether any dogma has "changed" :since Vatican II? Vatican II, if you were not aware of this, was a :_pastoral_ council (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 1) and defined no :new dogmas. I could imagine you would come up with that at last. Well, as I see it (maybe with prejudice), that while the veneer is carefully preserved, the essence changes over the centuries. Catholics never call a dogma what goes contrary to a previous dogma but rather say that it sheds new light on it. But the application, which is the essence, is turned upside down. Excuse me if I simplify the situation. I live in a country of lies, and am accustomed to this kind of speech from the lips of our leaders. I say: God bless them, but why do they consider me so gullible? The same do I apply to popes. Looking at the fruits, this conviction seems not lacking all foundation. :> Did he propose a debated theory to his very militant :> enemies to convince them of his spiritual primacy? :Who cares? That theory is ancient history, perhaps suited to the times, :but now long out of date. Why dwell on it? Because the whole Catholicism is sullied with it. The Church became similar to the world, which in itself is a sad result. :[...] in a consistory held on this matter he [Boniface] expressly :declared that the statement was falsely applied to him, "that we :had ordered the king to recognize his kingdom as from us. [...] :We say that we wish to usurp the jurisdiction of a king in nothing [...] :It cannot be denied that a king or any other person among the faithful :is subject to us by reason of sin." :Is this a clear enough statement for you, or not? As you could notice, I didn't quote this forgery. Then why do you make me read its refutation? I never stated that the king was alleged to have received his kingdom from the pope. OTOH, it's again a problem on the surface. The essence, that is, excommunicating those who don't acknowledge the primacy (not its way of introduction or its proof), still applies. :> So, if Boniface stated a theory in an extreme form to prove his :> primacy, doesn't the present dogmatic certainty level of the latter :> (100%) make the theory used for supporting it - more than a theory? :No way on earth. The dogma is certain; supporting statements :are not of necessity so. Then I pose the question in another way: Doesn't the fact that a supporting theory is out of date, mean that the primacy became weaker? Doesn't it hang in the air now? > If not, then doesn't the fact that debatable reliability to prove his point> mean that papacy used > dirty means to grasp what was, nevertheless, promised to him > by God? Doesn't it indicate the devotion to the principle > "the means is justified by the goal"? :But what if he would have used "dirty means" in his dealings :with kings? He is not listed as a saint in my sources. Oh no... Haven't you read 1Tim 3:1-7 about the necessary virtues of bishops? Why not apply it to the popes? [...] :>..."(see Rom 13:2)", as TCT indicates the source of quotation in :>terrible theological anguish. It is too strong to refer to spiritual power. :>Namely, because in the Bible it refers to political authorities who have :>the God-given right to behead evildoers. However twisted interpretation :>you give to this (obviously wilful) papal misquotation, the fact remains: :>the pope demanded the physical right over his enemies with this verse. :Huh? Where does the TCT show this anguish? When relying on the decision of the reader, that is, supposing that he doesn't follow the instruction " Rom 13:2". It is obvious that Boniface gave a new interpretation to the text when suggesting that "this power" is he himself. The Jesuit Fathers faced a serious dilemma: either they quote some church father to support Boniface's interpretation and run the risk of becoming ridiculous together with him, or they don't say a word and hope that the reader puts up with seeing a scriptural reference beside the papal sentence. :The fact remains: the Pope said himself that his authority :over a king or any other person *among the faithful* :pertained solely by reason *of sin*. Randal, I really try to make my point clear here. I don't bother myself on the proving procedure, because it is simply full of badly associated concepts (eg. "Christ entrusted all His sheep to Peter", thus "Peter is His vicar", implying that Peter has the full power of Christ, or as if no one should criticize the pope). Without clarification these ideas become tyranns; they suppress contrary arguments without convincing the opposing side. But the consequences cannot contradict scripture, otherwise the theory is somewhere wrong! This is my concern about Unam Sanctam: by various debatable means the pope heaped up such authority which served no good; it hinders ecumenism, makes papacy a living fossil, and the best way to put it right is to be silent about it. Ferenc Nemeth