Except I am under no impression that the Catholic church commands the authority of Peter and I am not blind to the fact that popes can be fallible.

If you do not reflect the basic affirmations of Christianity, you represent no "instance" at all. He is a jesuit (secular liberal shabbo catholic essentially) in a silly hat, and that's all he is.

Except I am under no impression that the Catholic church commands the authority of Peter and I am not blind to the fact that popes can be fallible.

If you do not reflect the basic affirmations of Christianity, you represent no "instance" at all. He is a jesuit (secular liberal shabbo catholic essentially) in a silly hat, that's all he is.

Except I am under no impression that the Catholic church commands the authority of Peter and I am not blind to the fact that popes can be fallible.

If you do not reflect the basic affirmations of Christianity, you represent no "instance" at all. He is a jesuit (secular liberal catholic essentially) in a silly hat, that's all he is.

Except I am under no impression that the Catholic church commands the authority of Peter and I am not blind to the fact that popes can be fallible.

If you do not reflect the basic affirmations of Christianity, you represent no "instance" at all. He is a jesuit in a silly hat, that's all he is.

Except I am under no impression that the Catholic church commands the authority of Peter, and I am not blind to the fact that popes can be fallible.

If you do not reflect the basic affirmations of Christianity, you represent no "instance" at all. He is a jesuit in a silly hat, that's all he is.

Except I am under no impression that the Catholic church commands the authority of Peter, and that popes can be fallible.

If you do not reflect the basic affirmations of Christianity, you represent no "instance" at all. He is a jesuit in a silly hat, that's all he is.