I want to know how the lay faithful are involved in the process? I thought it is more of the leadership of the local church and the Apostolic Nuncio. BLESSED BE GOD FOREVER
Spanish Jesuit Bernardino Llorca explained "First rhere was no distinction between 'bishops' ( overseeers) & 'presbyters' ( elders) they were synonemous. ( See Acts 20:17) but gradually the 'bishops' became more important and assumed supreme spiritual authority " ( 'History of the Catholic church'). Then from a group of such 'bishops' in each congregation with equal power, they became a 'monoepiscopate' ( One bishop per cong) then under the influence of the Roman empire they even replaced the secular district rulers of the 'diocese' throughout Italy & europe'. Thus Christioanity in its purer from was replaced by a politically based, harsh, pagan empire! (Just as Paul went on to predict in verse 30 of Acts 20!)
Peter, claimed as being one of the very first 'bishops', counselled other 'bishops' " Do not LORD it over the flock" ( 1 Peter 5:3). How is it then that these 'bishops, have a degree in theology ( Peter was an "man unlettered & ordinary" ( Acts 4:13). They live in 'palaces'. Have regal robes, sit on 'thrones' & receive great reverence while wielding authority not only over a congregation ( as in the first century) but over a 'diocease' ( a Roman secular province)? There is no comparison with early Christianity and the catholic & also the protestant church. ( In the UK 'bishops' even sit in the 'house of LORDS'!!) What would Peter think?
I want to know how the lay faithful are involved in the process? I thought it is more of the leadership of the local church and the Apostolic Nuncio. BLESSED BE GOD FOREVER
FROM MR PETER CASTELLINO , BOMBAY , 2-6-2024.
TO GET THE VERY BEST CANDIDATE AS A BISHOP BESIDES NOMINATING HIM ELECT TO ENSURE MERIT.
Spanish Jesuit Bernardino Llorca explained "First rhere was no distinction between 'bishops' ( overseeers) & 'presbyters' ( elders) they were synonemous. ( See Acts 20:17) but gradually the 'bishops' became more important and assumed supreme spiritual authority " ( 'History of the Catholic church'). Then from a group of such 'bishops' in each congregation with equal power, they became a 'monoepiscopate' ( One bishop per cong) then under the influence of the Roman empire they even replaced the secular district rulers of the 'diocese' throughout Italy & europe'. Thus Christioanity in its purer from was replaced by a politically based, harsh, pagan empire! (Just as Paul went on to predict in verse 30 of Acts 20!)
Is the Reformed Rite of Episcopal Consecration of Paul VI valid?
apparently, SSPX think it as valid
Peter, claimed as being one of the very first 'bishops', counselled other 'bishops' " Do not LORD it over the flock" ( 1 Peter 5:3). How is it then that these 'bishops, have a degree in theology ( Peter was an "man unlettered & ordinary" ( Acts 4:13). They live in 'palaces'. Have regal robes, sit on 'thrones' & receive great reverence while wielding authority not only over a congregation ( as in the first century) but over a 'diocease' ( a Roman secular province)? There is no comparison with early Christianity and the catholic & also the protestant church. ( In the UK 'bishops' even sit in the 'house of LORDS'!!) What would Peter think?