Catholic Church has never Changed doctrine.

[Uncertaindrummer]

Please take a "Catholic" compliment gracefully, wether it was a doctrine or tradition it was a good decision on the part of the Catholic leadership to change policy and encourage Catholics to read their Bibles. I don't think you want to debate here the countless historical records of the Catholic Church suppressing the reading of the Bible by laity. I'm sorry that you do not believe in the assurance of savlation, it must be very unnerving as a Christian.

Sabio

Actually I wouldn't mind arguing about the ridiculous amount of misconceptions regarding the Bible in the middle ages. As for the assurance thing, its not unnerving for me at all. I know that if I follow God's word I will enter Heaven, the Unnerving thing is that people actually think that jsut because someone proclaimed their love for Jesus and their Faith in Him, that they can continue murdering and raping to their heart's desire and still enter Heaven. That is a theory for anarchy and evil.

As for the "compliment", I did not take it as such, I am sorry if that offended you. There is nothing complimentary about being told your Church did thigns which it did not.

 

[James the Persian]

I don't recall treating you like an anti-Catholic protestant, but whatever. You obviously understand the issues, I don't recall saying you didn't. I was only asking your position on something and as usual you turn extremely defensive.

Either way, the arguments from Papal Infallibility still stem from Authority. If the Pope had the Authority over the Whole Church that the Catholic Church claims it does, Infallibility follows pretty easily, IMO. And obviously I think it does due to such exhortations of the Pope's authority as from Abbot Theodore of Studion in 817. "You are Peter," the letter to Pope Paschal I read, "pre-eminently holy, the great light, the supreme Bishop, and our Lord...the key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, the rock of Faith upon which the Catholic Church was built".

We obviously see things differently because I can't look at a letter like this and not think "authority".

As for your notion that the Bishops had councils without the Approval of the Pope, THAT I have seen no evidence for, and would be curious what councils you are talking about.

UD,

In this instance it was not you but Victor who I felt was treating me as a prejudiced anti-Catholic, which I thought was fairly clear in the part of my post you quoted. Maybe I should have replied to each of you separately, but as both your comments were related I saw no point.

As to your reply, I didn't claim that the councils were held without the approval of the Pope but that he often made no input to them himself (an awful lot of local councils both east and west and some of the Ecumenical Councils). You seem to have misread what I wrote - reading 'input' as 'approval' for some reason.

I must ask, however, why it is that if Infallibility follows on so naturally from Papal Supremacy, there were eminent Roman Catholic theologians during and after Vatican I that felt the need to protest? Also, why the need for the whole manipulative shenanigans to get Papal Infallibility passed by that Council? Everyone in the Roman Catholic church had already accepted the position of the Pope as claimed by your church by that time, it being as recent as the 19th century, but it seems that many theologians did not agree that Infallibility followed as obviously as you do. Dillinger, Schulte, Reinkens, Langen, Friedrich and others ended up in schism as Old Catholics over this very issue and Strossmeyer and Hefele only submitted later under protest - they all clearly believed that it was new and unjustified change in doctrine.

In any case, thank you for your civil reply and I apologise that you misunderstood the words I directed to Victor as having been levelled at you. I hope that we can continue to keep this discussion civil and free of accusations and personal attacks.

James

 

[Scott1]

Ah Victor. The Cathecism? Perhaps you should tell Scott it can be wrong and probably shouldn't use it to tell us (or teach others in a church setting) what Church doctrine is.

Hehe... can I get an amen, Pah?

The Catechism is most certainly the "sure norm for teaching the faith" JPII ... the problem is that with printed words (and any medium available to communicate), no matter how extensive and clear the Church tries to make them, may need explaining.

Catholic doctrine has MOST CERTAINLY changed over the years, and I'm kinda confused as to the point of this thread....

Peace in Christ,
Scott

 

[Katzpur]

You know, I'd really be interested in a debate here, and I'd even be willing to stay on topic (which is something that, so far, not a whole lot of posters seem willing to do). But I've submitted four posts so far (#16, #27, #32 and #34) and haven't been able to get a straight answer yet.

I would like to know two things:

1. Do you consider "establishing" a doctrine to be the same thing as "changing" a doctrine? In other words, if something was officially canonized for the first time in the year 750 A.D. (just pulling that year out of the air), does that constitute a "change"? If not, why not?

2. How would you define "doctrine," in the first place. How would you distinguish it from policy, practice, procedure, non-canonical tradition, commonly held belief, etc.?

I guess if no one answers me this time, I'll just take the hint and scratch this thread off my list.

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

As to your reply, I didn't claim that the councils were held without the approval of the Pope but that he often made no input to them himself (an awful lot of local councils both east and west and some of the Ecumenical Councils). You seem to have misread what I wrote - reading 'input' as 'approval' for some reason.

Well then I merely misunderstood your claim, sorry. The idea that a Pope did not actually preside at a few (actually ,several councils as little bearing on the discussion in my opinion so I thought you were implying something else. The Pope did however, have to approve of a council before it was considered valid.

I must ask, however, why it is that if Infallibility follows on so naturally from Papal Supremacy, there were eminent Roman Catholic theologians during and after Vatican I that felt the need to protest? Also, why the need for the whole manipulative shenanigans to get Papal Infallibility passed by that Council? Everyone in the Roman Catholic church had already accepted the position of the Pope as claimed by your church by that time, it being as recent as the 19th century, but it seems that many theologians did not agree that Infallibility followed as obviously as you do. Dillinger, Schulte, Reinkens, Langen, Friedrich and others ended up in schism as Old Catholics over this very issue and Strossmeyer and Hefele only submitted later under protest - they all clearly believed that it was new and unjustified change in doctrine.

Not entirelly true. I am not aware of or educated in ALL the men you have listed but I will deal with one in particular. Bishop Strossmayer DID believe in the dogma of Papal infallibility, he disagreed with an infallible pronouncement of it, however. He was actively engaged in certain ecumenical discussions then and thought that the timing for the pronoucnement of infalliblity was not a great one.

Anyway, as to the question, must a Pope be infallible if he has the authority over the whole Church: Do you not believe that the Bishops in unison have infallibility when proclaiming dogma? If not, then I stand corrected, Papal infallibility doesn't necessarily follow. But if you do believe so, the idea that somehow the Pope could rule the whole Church but could not even make a pronouncement based on Faith or Morals without someone being sure... that is highly suspect. Why bother having a Pope? What wold one do if a Pope ordered that Satanic worship was a Dogma of the Catholic Church? If Jesus truely meant to unify His Church and made one man its head, then it follows that this head must have some way of guiding the flock. Granted, that is not the ONLY argument for infallibility, and is based mostly on logic--but still, I think you get the idea.

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

The whole idea of a christian who commited murder or rape and is unashamed of it yet still professes their love of christ is going to go to heaven, but a kind and gentle Hindu going to Hell never made much sense to me. Believing in Salvation through faith alone seems to be a poor excuse to avoid criticism for being hateful. But then again, the big difference between me and most people here is that I think Salvation in general is a big joke.

np: Southern Death Cult- The Crypt

Well yes, the idea that Christian could be murderous and get into Heaven IS a big joke. A kind and gentle Hindu who through no fault of his own just never learned of Christ going to Hell would be unthinkable for a just God, and I believe He is just that.

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

You know, I'd really be interested in a debate here, and I'd even be willing to stay on topic (which is something that, so far, not a whole lot of posters seem willing to do). But I've submitted four posts so far (#16, #27, #32 and #34) and haven't been able to get a straight answer yet.

Sorry. I have been dealing msotly with others and letting Vic deal with you. But he's not here, so... I'll do the best I can.

1. Do you consider "establishing" a doctrine to be the same thing as "changing" a doctrine? In other words, if something was officially canonized for the first time in the year 750 A.D. (just pulling that year out of the air), does that constitute a "change"? If not, why not?

Let's change the word here. "Dogma". The Catholic Church has grown in understanding of and developed doctrines, but the underlying dogma never changes.

2. How would you define "doctrine," in the first place. How would you distinguish it from policy, practice, procedure, non-canonical tradition, commonly held belief, etc.?

Doctrines are indeed "established", but dogmas are not. They were all here since the end of the Apostolic age, and after that, no new public revelation has taken place. Some Dogmas are defined or infallibly proclaimed, but it is only with knowledge that we have always believed in such doctrines. To kill the phrase, "Things aren't infallibly defined until they are challenged". That is why so many things that Protestantism rejected, such as the Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibilty, etc. have been defined in the last five hundred years.

I guess if no one answers me this time, I'll just take the hint and scratch this thread off my list.[/QUOTE]

 

[Scott1]

Let's change the word here. "Dogma". The Catholic Church has grown in understanding of and developed doctrines, but the underlying dogma never changes.

Perfect. :clap

 

[Katzpur]

Drummer,

Sorry. I have been dealing msotly with others and letting Vic deal with you. But he's not here, so... I'll do the best I can.

Deal with me? Man, that sounds like of serious!

Let's change the word here. "Dogma". The Catholic Church has grown in understanding of and developed doctrines, but the underlying dogma never changes.

We can change the word to "dogma" if you'd like, although I see little difference between "doctrine" and "dogma." My Webster's Unabridged Dictionary uses them as synonymns, in fact. It says, "Doctrine: Teaching, instruction. Something taught, teachings. Something taught as the principles or creed of a religion, etc. Tenet or tenets, belief; dogma. Synonyms -- dogma, principle, precept, tenet." So, I think you're splitting hairs in trying to make a distinction between the two. I would agree, however, that policies and practices do not constitute either doctrine or dogma. They change as the needs of the membership of the Church (be it Catholic, LDS or Protestant) change.

Doctrines are indeed "established", but dogmas are not. They were all here since the end of the Apostolic age, and after that, no new public revelation has taken place. Some Dogmas are defined or infallibly proclaimed, but it is only with knowledge that we have always believed in such doctrines. To kill the phrase, "Things aren't infallibly defined until they are challenged". That is why so many things that Protestantism rejected, such as the Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibilty, etc. have been defined in the last five hundred years.

I'm assuming, from your this statement, that you would consider the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility to be dogmas, taught, as you said, since the end of the Apostolic age.

So, why don't we start with the Immaculate Conception? Would you mind quoting any of the Apostles or their contemporaries on this subject? (By contemporaries, I mean contemporaries. In other words, I don't consider someone who lived three or four hundred years after the Apostles to be their contemporary.)

Hey, thanks for answering (or dealing with me, as the case may be). I was beginning to feel very left out!

Kathryn

 

[Pah]

The subject of dogma is certainly tangential to the narrow topic of the thread.

But let me recap my understanding, so far.

Doctrine is the teaching of dogma.

Doctrine changes because dogma, never considered a change, is a truth further defined.

Do I have the position of the Catholic Church correct?

 

[Scott1]

Not sure how Victor is going to answer this... I'm looking forward to his return.

Scott

ps.. Hey Victor, might wanna check out Dei Verbum #8.. might help ya.

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

The subject of dogma is certainly tangential to the narrow topic of the thread.

But let me recap my understanding, so far.

Doctrine is the teaching of dogma.

Doctrine changes because dogma, never considered a change, is a truth further defined.

Do I have the position of the Catholic Church correct?

Without looking for loopholes and things wrong, this could be a workable definition. But since you seem to be having this argument with Vic you mgiht wanna wait for him.

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

Drummer,

Deal with me? Man, that sounds like of serious!

Sorry, wrong wording.

We can change the word to "dogma" if you'd like, although I see little difference between "doctrine" and "dogma." My Webster's Unabridged Dictionary uses them as synonymns, in fact. It says, "Doctrine: Teaching, instruction. Something taught, teachings. Something taught as the principles or creed of a religion, etc. Tenet or tenets, belief; dogma. Synonyms -- dogma, principle, precept, tenet." So, I think you're splitting hairs in trying to make a distinction between the two. I would agree, however, that policies and practices do not constitute either doctrine or dogma. They change as the needs of the membership of the Church (be it Catholic, LDS or Protestant) change.

Well we use the two phrases to differentiate between two things; dogma, the underlying principle (The Bible, for example), and doctrine (the list of BOOKS in the Bible).

I'm assuming, from your this statement, that you would consider the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility to be dogmas, taught, as you said, since the end of the Apostolic age.

Yes, although not necessarily with all the appreciation and understanding of those dogmas that we have today.

So, why don't we start with the Immaculate Conception? Would you mind quoting any of the Apostles or their contemporaries on this subject? (By contemporaries, I mean contemporaries. In other words, I don't consider someone who lived three or four hundred years after the Apostles to be their contemporary.)

The Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility, are--at least, we hold--taught in the Bible. I wouldn't mind having a discussion on that but it would be nice to make another topic.

Hey, thanks for answering (or dealing with me, as the case may be). I was beginning to feel very left out!

I will "deal" with you anytime you want

 

[Katzpur]

Well we use the two phrases to differentiate between two things; dogma, the underlying principle (The Bible, for example), and doctrine (the list of BOOKS in the Bible).

You know, this last statement makes no sense to me whatsoever. Dogma = the Bible and Doctrine = the list of books in the Bible? Whatever... I think we're starting to get picky. Hopefully I understand you guys well enough to be able to debate the issue. I just hope everybody else does. (By the way, the reason I was so insistent on your defining your terms is that this same debate comes up in my religion as well. People are always accusing the Latter-day Saints of changing doctrine. Since I don't believe we have ever changed our doctrines -- only our policies, practices and procedures -- I felt it was important to make it clear what you considered the word "doctrine" to mean, in the first place.)

Yes, although not necessarily with all the appreciation and understanding of those dogmas that we have today.

Now that's a very interesting comment. How did you get the appreciation and understanding of those dogmas that you have today? It obviously wasn't through continued revelation, since you believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the canon was sealed years ago and that revelation to the Church ceased with the deaths of the Apostles?

The Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility, are--at least, we hold--taught in the Bible. I wouldn't mind having a discussion on that but it would be nice to make another topic.

Since this is Victor's thread, and a discussion of the Immaculate Conception as an example of a doctrine I believe to have evolved over time seems to fit into the thread rather well, I see no reason to start another thread. But, if that's what you would prefer, I'm okay with it. Since it would be a sort of continuation of this topic, would you be so kind as to start the thread? That way you can word it in such a way that the Catholic position is the premise from which we begin the debate. Thanks.

Kathryn

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

You know, this last statement makes no sense to me whatsoever. Dogma = the Bible and Doctrine = the list of books in the Bible? Whatever... I think we're starting to get picky. Hopefully I understand you guys well enough to be able to debate the issue. I just hope everybody else does. (By the way, the reason I was so insistent on your defining your terms is that this same debate comes up in my religion as well. People are always accusing the Latter-day Saints of changing doctrine. Since I don't believe we have ever changed our doctrines -- only our policies, practices and procedures -- I felt it was important to make it clear what you considered the word "doctrine" to mean, in the first place.)

Its different in this way. The Catholic Church always knew there were inspired writings, and had those inspired writings at its disposal. It was not until the fourth century however, that WHICH books were inspired was officially proclaimed. That was not NEW knowledge, but it had not be defined before.

Now that's a very interesting comment. How did you get the appreciation and understanding of those dogmas that you have today? It obviously wasn't through continued revelation, since you believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the canon was sealed years ago and that revelation to the Church ceased with the deaths of the Apostles?

In the same way that just because I own a calculus textbook doesn't mean I know everything there is to know about Calculus. The desposit of Faith, which came to us through the Apostles, contains all that you need to know--just as the calculus book contains all I need to know to learn calculus--but jsut becasue I HAVE the book doesnt mean I understand everything to its fullest.

Since this is Victor's thread, and a discussion of the Immaculate Conception as an example of a doctrine I believe to have evolved over time seems to fit into the thread rather well, I see no reason to start another thread. But, if that's what you would prefer, I'm okay with it. Since it would be a sort of continuation of this topic, would you be so kind as to start the thread? That way you can word it in such a way that the Catholic position is the premise from which we begin the debate. Thanks.

Well I have no problem then. I'll make a post on the Immaculate conception soon. Don't have time at the moment though.

 

[Quiddity]

Ok...I'm back. Give me sometime to ponder over the posts and gather my thoughts and I will come back and post and respond to all.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

Firstly, however, I was asked if (assuming that the Pope had some authority over the Church prior to the Schism) that would imply he had some measure of infallibility. The answer is no. Doctrinal decisions were made by councils, often with no input from the Pope, and so even if he had ultimate authority he could not be said to be infallible - this is true only of the Church as a whole and not of any one man (and for the umpteenth time, I don't believe this was merely of honour - some Orthodox go too far on this - but that he had limited authority in being a bishop called on to settle disputes, having the right to chair a council etc. Where you and I disagree is that he had any right to interfere in and lord it over the other Patriarchates or that the Pope is in any way superior to the other bishops. His role was precisely that of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Orthodox Church since the Schism - and you know I can find at least as many Patristic proof texts as you in this argument). I can see no justification whatsoever, given the conciliar nature of the early Church, for the idea of Papal Infallibility.

Input and exercising authority from the Pope was only done when necessary. Many times, as you said, conciliar or collegiality did just fine. We can discuss this further but it was your comment of “how is it that Papal Infallibility was unheard of prior to Vatican 1” That made me jump.

You also claimed that the idea of Papal Infallibility was known before its definition. I would strongly dispute this and the reaction of eminent Roman Catholic theologians to the Vatican 1 council would seem to support this (if you haven't done so I would suggest reading up on the history of this council - I can provide some suggested reading if you like).

I’m sure you will agree that reactions of the flock are hardly a method for accepting or rejecting a dogma. But yes I would like some suggested reading.

As for Pope Leo, he made a claim to Papal Supremacy that was rejected in the East. He may or may not have included infallibility in this, but either way (unless you accept that he really was infallible, which would be circular logic) then this remains just that - a claim made by one bishop of his own superiority.

You aware that the Vatican Council (not the pope) proclaimed and defined infallibility?

Many saints and Church Fathers have made errors, and this would be no different. It is the consensus of the Church that matters, not one man's claims.

This seems to be a prevalent perception of EO’s. The Pope doesn’t make claims out of the blue. In all instances, any popes involved receive overwhelming solicitation from bishops, priests, and laymen, urging them to make a declaration on a matter. It’s anything but a solely "top-down" act of arbitrary power.

I would turn the question back on you, what of St Gregory the Great's letters to the Patriarchs at the time of John the Faster's being granted the (misunderstood) title of Ecumenical Patriarch? It is hard to see how they can be read in a way that does not condemn Papal Supremacy and Infallibility and he was, of course, a Pope.

What? You confused me here. Who said what? Please clarify.

Then, of course, you'd have to explain events like Pope Honorius' heresy or the period of the Popes and Antipopes - just who had supremacy and infallibility then? The Councils of Constance and Basel clearly do not seem to have been convinced of either the supremacy or infallibility of the Pope either.

We can do this. Just not for this topic.

I don't expect us to agree, otherwise the Schism would be rather easy to heal, but don't try and pretend that my arguments are blind prejudices - my opinions are based on my study of Church history and incur no shame on me, despite your comments Victor. If you two can discuss things without the flippant remarks and personal denigrations then I am willing to discuss things further. Otherwise I will leve this thread here because I don't appreciate being treated like an anti-Catholic Protestant with no understanding of the history of these issues.

James

I never said or assumed or your arguments are blind prejudices. Treated like an anti-catholic Protestant? It is my respect for your studies that made me say that James. I figured that you disagree with us but can at least see where we come from. I’m sure and don’t doubt you have done studies but often wonder what you or many others think when you read quotes like this:

Pope Julius (337-352)
The Eusebians believed that since Rome reserved the right to depose Novation without the East the East should have the freedom to depose Athanasius without interference from the West. Julius responded to them in a letter which was preserved by Athanasius:


It behooved you, beloved, to come hither [to Rome], and not to refuse, in order that this business may be terminated, for reason requires this... O beloved!...For even if any offenses had been committed by these men, as you say, the judgment ought to have been in accordance with the rule of the church, and not thus...And why were we not written to especially with regard to the church of Alexandria? Or are you ignorant that this has been the custom, first to write to us, and that thus what is just be decreed from here? If therefore any such suspicion fell upon the bishop there [at Alexandria], it was befitting to write to this church. Not thus were the ordinances of Paul, not thus have the Fathers handed it down to us. This is a new decree, and a new institution. Bear with me, I exhort you, for what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed apostle Peter, the same do I manifest to you. [Apol., 35. PG 25: 305-8]

Socrates wrote(306-439 aprox.) that Julius rebuked the Eusebians on the grounds that:
...it is unlawful to legislate for the churches without the consent of the bishop of Rome [HE II, 17 ]


Maximus the Confessor (580-662) who said that the Apostolic See of Rome:

... from God the Incarnate Word Himself as well as all the holy Councils, according to the sacred canons and definitions, has received and possesses supreme power in all things and for all things, over all the holy churches of God throughout the world, as well as power and authority of binding and loosing. For with this church, the Word, who commands the powers of heaven, binds and looses in heaven. [PG 91: 144]


Council of Sardica (343)


... most beloved brother, although you were separated in the body, you were present by a like mind and will...For this will seem best and most exceedingly fitting if the bishops of the Lord, from each of the different provinces, refer to the head [caput], that is, the see of Peter the apostle...[Mansi 3: 40]


Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604)


Pope Gregory proclaims that the Apostolic See is “head of all the churches.” [Epp. XIII, 45. PL 77, 1298]

Peace In Christ
~Victor

 

[Uncertaindrummer]

you'd have to explain events like Pope Honorius' heresy

Just noticed this... Forthe last time, Pope Honorious was not a heretic, and that is a historical fact. If you want to argue that he didn't strongly enough condemn a heresy, fine. But he was NOT a heresy and when you repeat something that has been demonstrated to be false before, you sound bigoted. Now I am not saying you are, but it comes across that way. Honorious never subscribed to any heretical beliefs, he merely was too weak to come out and condemn them.

 

[Quiddity]

In my second post I noted what is considered final say (Ecumenical Councils and ex-cathedra) for Catholics. I want to come at this in a different angle because I realize now when non-Catholics say “Catholic doctrine has changed” they are understanding it differently then I am. Whether someone believes doctrine involves science, history, or what ever else people think is involved. I usually respond by saying anything that involves faith and morals is considered doctrine. Or as Dei Verbum says “everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God”. So doctrine can be found outside of what I called “final say”. Final say is basically dogma. As Pah said, dogma “is a truth further defined”. I was attempting to stick to final say because it is easier for me to explain and for people to misunderstand. But regardless of where doctrine lies (dogma or not yet defined) Scott made an excellent point by saying “no matter how extensive and clear the Church tries to make them, may need explaining”. With that said, doctrine is found in the consciousness of the Church. That is exactly why things are revised and further explained. From day one people have misunderstood and deviated from what the Church was trying to say. If the up rise was large enough the Church would release letters or hold Councils to clarify and settle the matter. This was also part of the growth process for the Church. It’s about presenting your ideas so plainly that most people can understand them regardless of their biases and presuppositions. No text can truly accomplish this on its own. That is why a live interpreter and corrector (The Church) is needed. And that is why I said that doctrine is found in the consciousness of the Church.
I do apologize for not clarifying things earlier. I hope this helps.
I will also paste Councils and Canon Law to further explain how things work concerning the topic.

Code of Canon Lawprovides that "No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such" (CIC 749 § 3).

Vatican I, which defined the doctrine of Infallibility for the Pope says, "The Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra . . . possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of blessed Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining the doctrine concerning faith or morals" (Pastor Aeternus 4).

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility with unity of bishops (Ecumenical Councils) as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

Do I have the position of the Catholic Church correct?

Yeah this will work. Just take Uncertaindrummer’s comment above into consideration.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

Katzpur, sorry I wasn't trying to ignore you. I hope the above answers your questions. Please let me know.

~Victor