Sunday, August 17, 2003
I'm leaving for school tomorrow morning, and I don't know whether an ethernet connection awaits me or not (that's the roommate's job). If so, I'll blog more once I get there. If not, I won't. Simple.
Meanwhile, I considered posting my thoughts on all this papal infallibility business, but it occurred to me that I shouldn't. I read recently that "issues divide, mission unites," and I take that to heart. I don't buy the arguments put forth for many Roman Catholic positions (or those of many other groups, whether Protestants, Orthodox, Premillenialists, Charismatics, or whatever), but I can respect the people who do. I know David Heddle disagrees with me on this, but I feel like I'd be wasting my time and alienating people. TS O'Rama mentions Archbishop Fulton Sheen's point "win an argument, lose a soul," and I agree with that as well. What's too-often lacking is basic courtesy. I had a Protestant friend start railing against the Roman Catholics while we were in the nave of the Cathedral-Basilica of Sts. Peter and Paul in Philadelphia, while I also keep seeing Catholic blogs calling Anglican leaders "bishops," pseudo-bishops, or talking about how sad it is that the See of Canterbury has been vacant for so very long. All of that is insulting and unnecessary.
I don't recognize any positions higher than archbishop, yet I still think we should call the Bishop of Rome the Pope and the archbishops directly under him cardinals. Likewise, while I know the Methodists don't have apostolic succession, I have no problem with calling their leaders bishops, as that's what they call themselves. "Bishop" literally means "overseer" (epi=above/over, skopos=watcher/seer), and thus could very easily even apply to someone like a Bible Study leader.
Sorry, the abuse of nomenclature is a big no-no with me, and I couldn't let this go. Have a good day, and see you later this week!