Orthodoxy, Papacy

[Ferde_Rombola]

Hierarchy doesn’t necessarily mean a top down model, especially from a Christian perspective.

What does it mean?

 

[Bluegoat]

What does it mean?

A structure where each element has it’s own place in relation to the others. Every element relates to the divine not only through the structure, but also directly.

 

[JimCBrooklyn]

“Catholic” and “orthodox” have meanings outside of the title of the Churches being discussed. Those titles came from the secular meanings of the words. “Catholic” means universal. “Orthodox” means doctrinally correct. The Catholic Church came to be called The Catholic Church precisely because she is universal and is the repository of correct Christian doctrine. The Orthodox Church did not exist until after the 11th (or 13th) Century split. The Orthodox SAY it did, but you will not find any reference to an “Orthodox Church” capitol “O” in early Church history. Consequently, all Christians were Catholics until the split.

The split had as much or more to do with language, culture and pride as it did with doctrine. That aside, there is a common sense element to this. The absence of an “Orthodox Church” for many centuries after the Apostles is one element. ANother is the facts of the Nestorian heresy. Nestorius was the Patriarch of Constantinople when he taught his heresy. I.e., he was a Catholic bishop. When he tried to separate the two natures of Christ, he was opposed primarily by Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria. Both appealed to Pope Celestine for adjudication. The council had already been called, but Cyril would no budge from Alexandria until he heard from the Pope. The Pope ignored Nesorius and wrote to Cyril authorizing him to speak in the Pope’s name and to tell Nestorius to either disown his heresy or be anathematized. It is clear, a that time, the primacy of the pope was not in dispute.

On the matter on infallibility, it’s not about obeying every word the pope says. The doctrine of infallibility is stated in the negative – that the Church is protected from error by the Holy Spirit acting through the pope and the Magesterium… The Orthodox have no guarantee they are protected from error. They say their councils are infallible, but they haven’t held one for centuries. If you can believe the Lord would leave His Church with no guarantee she is teaching the truth, then you can listen to Orthodox claims.

Finally, Mt. 16:19 either means what it says, or we can toss the entire Bible.

Peace. I hope you resolve this matter. I will pay for you and your family.

A) The whole “Orthodox/Catholic” thing is absolutely semantics. Roman Catholics view their faith as an Orthodox faith, and Orthodox view theirs as a Catholic faith. Period.

B)Nestorianism is something I’m not well read on, and will certainly investigate in light of what you have to say here.

C) I am fully aware of what infallibility is; of course it doesn’t mean the Pope can do no wrong. If you go further up in the thread you will see that, but I’m still uncertain of its precedence.

D) I have to fall somewhere in between you and Contarini on this one. I agree that you simply saying “either it means what it says, or it does not”, assuming that your interpretation is bulletproof, is short-sighted. That said, I think it’s very clear that Peter is given a special role. What this means for Rome, and the extent of its jurisidiction, is not clear.

 

[JimCBrooklyn]

And as for the last comment, my family is quite well off, so we’ll be alright, but thank you.

I know it was a typo

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

No, Contarini, I do not try to minimize the other Bishops! I fully subscribe to Vatican I, AND Vatican II. The Bishops speak with authority when they teach in agreement with each other AND with the Pope! The only problem is, you cannot leave out the Pope from this business, at least if I understand correctly the teachings of Vatican II.

Also, with laity, and religious (brothers, nuns, priests) - they mightily influenced the decisions of Popes and Bishops at times! St. Francis of Assisi, St. Teresa of Avila renewed the face of the Catholic Church - but they always stayed on the path of obedience, and did seek and obtain their Bishop’s and even the Pope’s approval, in contrast with Martin Luther. Also, St. Catherine of Siena persuaded the Pope to come back to Rome, from the captivity at Avignon. I’m not trying to minimize the role of other Church members, either - as long as they stay OBEDIENT to their Bishops, and to the Pope.

With Pope Clement, and whether he was a Bishop, this is way above my paygrade. But this is what I found:

There is little intentional dogmatic teaching in the Epistle, for it is almost wholly hortatory. A passage on the Holy Trinity is important. Clement uses the Old Testament affirmation “The Lord liveth”, substituting the Trinity thus: “As God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Christ liveth and the Holy Spirit — the faith and hope of the elect, so surely he that performeth”, etc. (58). Christ is frequently represented as the High-Priest, and redemption is often referred to. Clement speaks strongly of justification by works. His words on the Christian ministry have given rise to much discussion (42 and 44): “The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent from God. So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles from Christ. Both [missions] therefore came in due order by the will of God… So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first-fruits, having proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons for those who should believe. And this in no new fashion, for it had indeed been written from very ancient times about bishops and deacons; for thus saith the Scripture: 'I will appoint their bishops in justice and their deacons in faith”’ (a strange citation of Isaiah 60:17). . . . “And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the office of bishop. For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they have given a law, so that, if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration.” Rothe, Michiels (Origines de l’episcopat, Louvain, 1900, 197), and others awkwardly understand “if they, the Apostles, should fall asleep”. For epinomen dedokasin, which the Latin renders legem dederunt, Lightfoot reads epimonen dedokasin, “they have provided a continuance”. In any case the general meaning is clear, that the Apostles provided for a lawful succession of ministers. Presbyters are mentioned several times, but are not distinguished from bishops. There is absolutely no mention of a bishop at Corinth, and the ecclesiastical authorities there are always spoken of in the. plural. R. Sohm thinks there was as yet no bishop at Corinth when Clement wrote (so Michiels and many other Catholic writers; Lightfoot leaves the question open), but that a bishop must have been appointed in consequence of the letter; he thinks that Rome was the origin of all ecclesiastical institutions and laws (Kirchenrecht 189). Harnack in 1897 (Chronol., I) upheld the paradox that the Church of Rome was so conservative as to be governed by presbyters until Anicetus; and that when the list of popes was composed, c. 170, there had been a bishop for less than twenty years; Clement and others in the list were only presbyters of special influence.

newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm

If I understand it correctly, Clement was “presbyter”, not Bishop, and there was probably no Bishop in Corinth, either. But Clement was Peter’s successor, while the leaders at Corinth were not.

As a side note, quite a convincing presentation of the top-down structure of the Church, by Clement. God appointed Christ, Christ appointed the Apostles, and the Apostles “appointed their first-fruits, having proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons for those who should believe”. See full quote above.

 

[josie_L]

Furthermore, you overstate what the Orthodox mean by the equality of all bishops. They don’t mean that no bishop can ever take a tone of authority to another, but that the differences among bishops are purely a matter of human authority and of different grades of honor.

I am not sure they are right with regard to the Papacy–I think there are reasons (not entirely conclusive, but not without some weight) to believe that the primacy of Rome may be of divine institution. The problem is that the Papacy has clearly been functioning in a highly disordered manner for the past millennium. Admittedly that’s a point in favor of the Orthodox. It all depends on which point you find more significant. You and Ferde are doing a good job of making a case for the Orthodox alternative, however unpalatable those of us who are inclined toward Rome may find it

But at any rate, one Orthodox bishop might possibly write that way to another one, and would certainly be capable of writing that way to people who had thrown out their bishop, which is the case here.

If you think that the Pope isn’t a bishop, then you really are a heretic. If this were the teaching of your Communion, it would be easy to decide for the Orthodox. Unfortunately for the clarity of my mind, more eminent members of your Communion (such as the Pope) speak quite differently!

And of course if there was no bishop of Rome at the time, then a fortiori there was no Pope.

No, it doesn’t stand, because you haven’t established that he said anything that any Christian couldn’t say to another, much less anything that a bishop with primacy of honor couldn’t say to members of a disorderly congregation who had deposed their own rightful bishop/presbyters.

Do you really think that the Holy Spirit speaks only through the Pope? That speaks volumes for how disordered your view of the Church is. Do you really think that only the Pope can ever say things that are worth listening to?

This is the problem: you start with the assumption that only the Pope matters, and think that Clement’s tone proves that he makes claims like those of the modern Papacy! But that’s only true if the slavish, authoritarian model of the Church you assume is true, and that’s precisely the point under debate.

The ecclesiology expressed by you and Ferde is so horrifying, that I think there are good reasons for the rest of us to be slow in accepting union with Rome until this ecclesiology has been anathematized by Rome for the blasphemous parody of Catholicism that it is. The fact that the Pope clearly doesn’t think this way is cheering–but the structures of your Communion have been shaped by centuries of this approach.

Edwin

I think what is trying to be conveyed here by Ferdie and Joseph is the fact that the Bishop of Rome had an authority that supercedes the notion of “primacy of honour” as understood by the Orthodox, i.e., he is the head of the visible Church as sanctioned by Christ through Peter and as such his successors (hence Joseph’s comments concerning Clement, i.e., why would the Church in Corinth choose to consult Rome when other sees were closer in distance and the apostle John was still alive?). With respect to the role of the laity, perhaps the manner in which it was put by Ferde lacked distinction, but the basic premise is true, i.e., the laity does not have apostolic succession as such it’s role with respect to determining the faith is extremely limited, i.e., it is the magisterium headed by the Pope which interprets the Word of God (whether in the written form or in the form of Tradition). The Catholic Church is therefore “mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: " He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms" (taken from the CCC, pg 33). No one contends that the laity do not have a special role to play within the Church (which is upholding, spreading, and living out the truth which has been delineated for us through the magisterium headed by the Pope in conformity with the Word of God).

 

[josie_L]

A structure where each element has it’s own place in relation to the others. Every element relates to the divine not only through the structure, but also directly.

Would that structure include a visible head with respect to the Church of Christ?

 

[Bluegoat]

Would that structure include a visible head with respect to the Church of Christ?

It could, but it isn’t required in order to qualify as a hierarchy.

 

[josephdaniel29]

That the Lord created a top down structure for His Church is not an assumption at all, dubious or otherwise. See Mt. 16:18-19. And please don’t evem suggest it doesn’t mean what it says. It means what it says.

Which ‘members’ are you talking about. You can get any number of people who call themselves Catholics to agree with anything you say against the Church. It means nothing.

That’s a highly dubious assumption and a nonsequitur. Just because the idea came from a civil model doesn’t mean it’s not what Jesus intended. The fact the Church evolved to the government you reject must be what Jesus intended in light of His promises in Mt. 28:20 and John 16:13. In addition to the aforesaid, of course.

A striking number of contradictions in so few words. You ARE denying hierarchy. A hierarchy IS a top-down structure. That’s what ‘hierarchy’ means. Stripped down, you say coercive authority flows from Jesus… Is that what you mean?

The authority of the Catholic Magisterium is derived from Scripture, the words of the Lord and the teaching of the Apostles and their successors. You are a Protestant and you don’t like it. Is there any news there?

You’re going to have to show more than a mere declaration to sell that one. Those you call ‘liberal Catholics’ are Protestants who go to Mass on Sunday.

You used that bit of ‘logic’’ to justify the overthrow and murder of bishops by a rebellious laity. To follow your ‘logic,’ Al Capone was a baptized member of the Church, too.

Y’know, Edwin, sometimes, when you have nothing to say, it’s best to say nothing.

It is not the business of the laity to govern the Church. That is the ‘business’ of the bishops. And it’s certainly not the business of the laity to insist on division, on acrimony, on hate and intolerance when their bishops are about the business of creating the unity the Lord prayed for. You are far out of line here in your zeal to condemn the Catholic Church. You lose credibility like that.

Any MORE authority than a layperson?? How much authority should a layperson have in your opinion? What, if anything, is left to the bishops?

This is your response to the statement the Lord didn’t set up his Church to have the laity over-ruling the Bishops. Joseph doesn’t say that. History and Scripture say that. You beg the question. The heart of what is wrong with the Catholic Church today is unfaithful, sinful bishops and priests. Primarily homosexual bishops and priests and others who refuse to condemn the sinful and who refuse to teaching authentic Catholic doctrine. Please don’t presume to tell us what’s wrong with our Church. Not with that log in your own eye.

The laity being part of the Church is a false, empty argument. No one disputes it. It’s the degree of involvement at issue. Your opinion seems to be the laity have the right to rule the Church and you are wrong.

I have a link that may be of interest to you. At the very least it will give you a much better understanding of where we Orthodox are coming from when discussing these issues. It may be the best explanation of the nature of the hierarchy in the Orthodox Church ever written. It is from a book by Fr Sergius Bulgakov entitled The Orthodox Church.

Here is a link to the chapter The Hierarchy.

It is a little lengthy but I recommend you take the time to read it. I think you may enjoy it.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

A) The whole “Orthodox/Catholic” thing is absolutely semantics. Roman Catholics view their faith as an Orthodox faith, and Orthodox view theirs as a Catholic faith. Period.

I don’t agree with that and I think you won’t find many Orthodox or Catholics who will, either, but, since you seem to want it that way, I won’t get into it.

C) I am fully aware of what infallibility is; of course it doesn’t mean the Pope can do no wrong. If you go further up in the thread you will see that, but I’m still uncertain of its precedence.

What does the passage, “Whatever you declare bound on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven.” mean to you?

D) I have to fall somewhere in between you and Contarini on this one. I agree that you simply saying “either it means what it says, or it does not”, assuming that your interpretation is bulletproof, is short-sighted. That said, I think it’s very clear that Peter is given a special role. What this means for Rome, and the extent of its jurisidiction, is not clear.

It’s quite clear if we allow the words to speak for themselves. There’s no question what they say, is there? The trouble begins only when we don’t want them to mean what they say.

Peter IS given a special role. VERY special.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I have a link that may be of interest to you. At the very least it will give you a much better understanding of where we Orthodox are coming from when discussing these issues. It may be the best explanation of the nature of the hierarchy in the Orthodox Church ever written. It is from a book by Fr Sergius Bulgakov entitled The Orthodox Church.

Here is a link to the chapter The Hierarchy.

It is a little lengthy but I recommend you take the time to read it. I think you may enjoy it.

Yours in Christ
Joe

Thanks, Joe. I did read about the first third of the chapter and I’m afraid I must say I found too many contradictions, inventions, misrepresentations and flaws to warrant continuing to the end. As just one example, Fr. Bulgakov says the powers given by the Lord to the Apostles were personal and not continued by their successors. He names Peter specifically. Then he says the Apostles delegated their powers to those who followed them. That contradiction occurs in only a few sentences. He misrepresents Catholic teaching about the pope and seems, in too many places, to want it both ways.

There is nothing new there and nothing particularly enlightening. And there is much he does not discuss which relates to what I read. He may cover it in later sections, but I didn’t see any method to assure the teaching of correct doctrine or to insure unity, two elements the Lord found essential to the life of the Church.

Thanks again.

 

[Bluegoat]

Thanks, Joe. I did read about the first third of the chapter and I’m afraid I must say I found too many contradictions, inventions, misrepresentations and flaws to warrant continuing to the end. As just one example, Fr. Bulgakov says the powers given by the Lord to the Apostles were personal and not continued by their successors. He names Peter specifically. Then he says the Apostles delegated their powers to those who followed them. That contradiction occurs in only a few sentences. He misrepresents Catholic teaching about the pope and seems, in too many places, to want it both ways.

Huh. He went to some trouble to explain what he meant by the difference between personal attributes given and those which could be passed on, so I am not sure how that is an immediate contradiction.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Huh. He went to some trouble to explain what he meant by the difference between personal attributes given and those which could be passed on, so I am not sure how that is an immediate contradiction.

Unless Ferde wants to make the case that the pope has the power to heal people at will or that his shadow has healing powers then there is no contradiction at all. Those were personal gifts given to the Apostles.

Of course I have had a poster on here recently make the case that the authority of Pope St Clement was greater than that of the Apostle John so anything is possible.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

Thanks, Joe. I did read about the first third of the chapter and I’m afraid I must say I found too many contradictions, inventions, misrepresentations and flaws to warrant continuing to the end.

Translation: The article contradicts my established world view so it must be filled with inherit contradictions and misrepresentations. Since my understanding is correct there is no other rational explanation.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Ferde,

I’m going to suggest that it (Mt. 16:18-19) doesn’t mean what you think it says.

No kidding?! LOL! What a strange thought to come from a Protestant.

Edwin, I’m going to suggest to you it’s not a matter of what I think it means, it’s a matter of what it SAYS! It’s you who needs to think it means something other than what it says. It’s incumbent on you to take that position. You are forced to take that position by your opposition to Catholic teaching. You have no choice. However, if you simply read the words, use the KJV if you wish, you will find the words are clear and unambiguous. And they mean what they say.

If you don’t want to hear people tell you that Scripture doesn’t mean what you think it means, you will have to avoid discussing Scripture at all.

You are playing the fundamentalist game of quoting a Scripture passage and simply assuming that your interpretation is correct. You will have to argue for your interpretation, not assume it.

You’re wrong twice there. First, I debate with fundamentalists on the internet every day. They tell me the same things you do, so you’ll have to look closer to home to detect the ‘fundamentalist game.’ They tell me Scripture doesn’t mean what I think it means. I tell them it’s not a matter of what I think, but what the text says. They say we have to look past the words to see INSIDE the text. Ah yes, I say. We have to look inside to see what isn’t there.

Second, I don’t interpret, Edwin. Protestants interpret. I just read the text for content. I don’t have to argue for an interpretation or assume one. All I have to do is read what the words say. Where they are not clear, I need help, but there is nothing unclear about Mt. 16:18-19. It’s clear as a bell and, lest you think I’m inventing something, it has been believed by the Church for 2000 years.

Indeed, recent discussions have shown me that I need to be very careful saying that your Church does anything at all. According to some of your fellow Catholics, it really doesn’t do much except issue the occasional infallible proclamation. Everything else, apparently, is done by its “members,” who are sharply distinct from the Church itself.

Can you name some of the occasional infallible proclamations? While you’re at it, can you give me some examples of the exercise of dictatorial power of, say, the last 5 popes and/or examples of how those popes imposed their will on, I dunno, pick one or two – the laity, other bishops, the world at large? Two or three will suffice. Just enough to get the lay of the land.

That bishops were elected by the people is not a dubious assumption, but an indisputable fact.

True. Ambrose was acclaimed Bishop of Milan by the people BEFORE HE WAS BAPTIZED OR ORDAINED!!! How many Catholics were there in the world at that time?

Your concept of a Church of over a billion people, found in every country in the world, being in any way obligated to those people for governance is untenable by any standard. That fact is proven conclusively by the state of the Protestant world today. Indeed, from Luther to today! Hundreds of different religions and thousands of different sects with competing theologies adds up to complete chaos, a splintering of the laity into ever more sects, more division, more chaos which continues to this day, all the result of the freedom from the Pope won for them by M. Luther and the other ex-Catholic heretics of the 16th Century. That may be what YOU want for the Catholic Church, but no thanks. We have a Pope and it is the Papacy which has kept the Church unified for 2000 years. We have had many dissidents, many crises, much trouble, but the Lord has always seen us to the other side and we trust He will rescue us yet again. With the Papacy intact.

I agree entirely. And the same would be true if, for instance, the Catholic Church were now to propose to adopt a mode of government more influenced by modern democracy. Yet many conservative Catholics would in that case use the “civil model” to discredit the ecclesiastical one.

Pure conjecture. We could go all year on conjecture. Read what I wrote above. Let’s stick to that, shall we?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Contarini;6857763:

Again, you are as certain as Protestant fundamentalists that isolated Scripture passages must mean exactly what you say they mean. And you seem just as unconcerned to provide any actual exegetical argument supporting your claim.

I consider that a personal insult. Please don’t compare me with fundies ever again. It is a false accusation and, in light of all I’ve said to you, a not very intelligent observation. I have said what I’ve said about Scripture and, like Scripture, I mean it.

Your claim is on the face of it highly dubious, since it assumes that in the early centuries Jesus’ promise had not yet been fulfilled.

Not completely fulfilled. And, upon reflection, not fulfilled at all. Yet. The Gospel has been preached to the ends of the earth, primarily by the Catholic Church whether you like it or not, but most of the world is non-Christian. M. Luther and his cohorts have definitely held us up. We are not one as the Lord and His Father are One and we are losing ground to a decadent secular culture with the mainline Protestants leading the way. But, hey, it’s only been 2000 years. There’s still time.

Yes, but there are many kinds of hierarchies. You are suggesting that the only rightful structure for the Church is one in which *all *

authority comes from above and in which the “superior” is in no way accountable to the “inferior.” You are claiming that to deny such absolutism is to deny hierarchy. Nonsense. There are plenty of hierarchical structures in which the “superior” may be held accountable.
Much begging of the question there. If by ‘from above’ and ‘in no way accountable to the inferior’ you mean Our Lord, you’re right. He is the Head of the Church and we are His Body. It is we who are accountable to Him. If you mean the Pope, I challenge you to name one individual on this earth under more scrutiny than the Pope, who is more maligned and attacked than the Pope, who is treated more unjustly than the Pope. If that’s your idea of a despotic dictator, you need to clear your head.

My argument is twofold:

1. Authority flows from Christ to the Church as a whole

, which is Christ’s body and has various organs. The bishops are the organs responsible to rule and govern the Body as a whole and to preside over the administration of the sacraments. They derive their legitimacy from the laying on of hands by those who are already bishops. In that sense the Church’s structure is indeed “top-down.” However, according to the ancient practice of the Church the laity and clergy of a diocese chose the bishop, and could appeal against a corrupt or heretical bishop to the Church as a whole. The modern practice of your communion is for bishops to be appointed by Rome, and your overly “top-down” approach to authority leads you to think of an appeal against a bishop to be simply an appeal to the “higher” authority, namely the Pope. Hence the innovative and unorthodox claim of the Gregorian papacy that there was no appeal from a decision of the Bishop of Rome, and the frantic attempts of the late medieval papacy to stop people from appealing from the Pope to Councils.

Note: Luther helped kill off conciliarism by his bad-faith appeal to a Council–if it wasn’t bad faith at the time, he certainly didn’t stick by it when it was pointed out to him that his position contradicted the decrees of Councils as well.
The first part is fundamental doctrine. No problem.

The second part is a little too simplistic. Bishops are appointed by the Pope, but only after much vetting of the candidate. Those in the dicastry, priests and bishops in the candidate’s diocese have great influence on who is selected. The laity may submit an opinion, but I doubt it’s given much consideration. Most Catholic laity are not aware of the qualities required of a bishop and, in this day, there is always the danger of making it a popularity contest.

Getting rid of bad bishops is another story and I tend to lean your way on that one. I can tell you, however, Bernard Law was chased out of Boston by the laity, yours truly included.

It seems to me most non-Catholics judge the modern papacy by the failings of medieval popes. Why is that?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Translation: The article contradicts my established world view so it must be filled with inherit contradictions and misrepresentations. Since my understanding is correct there is no other rational explanation.

Yeah, that’s about it.

 

[JimCBrooklyn]

I don’t agree with that and I think you won’t find many Orthodox or Catholics who will, either, but, since you seem to want it that way, I won’t get into it.

What does the passage, “Whatever you declare bound on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven.” mean to you?

It’s quite clear if we allow the words to speak for themselves. There’s no question what they say, is there? The trouble begins only when we don’t want them to mean what they say.

Peter IS given a special role. VERY special.

It means that Peter is given a “VERY” special role, and that whatever he declares bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever he declares loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven. It absolutely means that; that is where I’m not disagreeing with you, but He says that to Peter. He does not say, “and all of the guys that succeed you in your role as presbyter when you get to this other city in 30 years or so, but only when they speak ex cathedra”. I’m not saying I flat out don’t believe that, but it’s certainly not clear from that passage.

As to the first issue, what did Chesterton have in mind when he wrote Orthodoxy? And you would be hard pressed to find an EO that does not view theirs as the catholic faith.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Of course I have had a poster on here recently make the case that the authority of Pope St Clement was greater than that of the Apostle John so anything is possible.

If the Catholics are right about the nature of the papacy, then this makes perfect sense to me. If there are two brothers, and the eldest becomes king, then the eldest has greater authority than his brother. If the eldest then has a son and dies, the kingship passes to the son, who will have greater authority than his uncle. If the pope is the “king” of the Church Militant, then Pope St. Clement would have had greater authority than the Apostle John.

 

[JimCBrooklyn]

If the Catholics are right about the nature of the papacy, then this makes perfect sense to me. If there are two brothers, and the eldest becomes king, then the eldest has greater authority than his brother. If the eldest then has a son and dies, the kingship passes to the son, who will have greater authority than his uncle. If the pope is the “king” of the Church Militant, then Pope St. Clement would have had greater authority than the Apostle John.

Agreed.