1614 In his homily, Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman, as the Creator wanted from the beginning of Moses for the divorce of his wife, was a concession to the hardness of hearts.106 The conjugal union of man and woman is indissolubly: it is God himself who has determined “what God has thus united. 107 With regard to historical differences on individual double predestination, the formulas indicate that reformed and Lutheran opinions can agree that salvation by faith alone and that “Lutherans and Reformed people have different priorities in the way they think about the sovereignty of God`s love, they agree that “God`s unconditional will to save against all optimism or cultural pessimism must be preached” (A Common 54). [5] It is recalled that “a common language that transcends the polemic of the past and which witnesses the common predestination of Lutheran and Reformed churches has already appeared in theological writings and official or unofficial declarations in our Churches” (A Common Vocation, page 55). [5] As true as this is, it would be wrong to say that both parties should agree on the meaning of a particular clause or article. Indeed, he is the legitimate interpreter who is the legislator in question. However, the Pope still retains his jurisdiction and legislative power over matters that are entirely or partially spiritual in nature, nor can he transfer power to another. Therefore, the Sovereign Pontiff is still the reference interpreter. It is therefore clear that in the event of discussion, and the civil authorities refuse to consent to an appropriate accommodation, the Church may, because of its higher judicial power, exercise this right to annul the concorda. It is also clear that if, in the event of future misunderstanding, the Church undertakes to discuss the situation with the civil authorities with a view to reaching an amicable settlement, such a law will be considered excessive; Indeed, if the Church renounces one of her claims, she makes a concession to the state, for the highest community has the right to have a discussion, although the losing body retains its approval.

The argument drawn from isolated phrases sometimes in diplomatic correspondence is of lesser value. Indeed, apart from the fact that, in these diplomatic notes, it may never be a concordat identical to a bilateral treaty, it must also be granted and, without circumvention, the weakest argument is what comes from one or the other sentence used by a cardinal secretary of state or a nunacious in a single diplomatic note. For the admission is not imposed on us that these sentences are the best that could be chosen in the circumstances. It is also false that contract theory is more often held by theologians and canonists. For this does not apply either to modern canonists, while this is absolutely false of those of yesteryear, many of whom (as Baldi clearly demonstrates in his scholarly commentary on the concordats already mentioned) have expressed the opinion expressed in this document. The opinion is based on two principles: first, the non-coordination of ecclesial society and civil society; second, that the power of the Roman Pope cannot be alienated or diminished. On this point, Mr. Wernz wisely points out: “If the coordination of the Church and the State is required as an argument, then the treaty theory is based either on error or on outright fiction, without any objective reality.” (See S-gmuller, “Manual of Canon Law,” 89 sqq.) It follows that it is quite impossible to call an international treaty an international treaty in the real and real sense of the term (cf.