White outfit, wrong occasion, Cherie (Cherie Blair didn't wear black to meet the Pope)

UK Telegraph ^ | 4/29/06 | Malcolm Moore and Jonathan Petre

[wagglebee]

Cherie Blair provoked surprise in the Vatican and the ire of a Roman Catholic MP yesterday by wearing all-white to meet the Pope, a privilege normally reserved for Catholic Queens.

The Vatican convention is that females meeting the Pontiff should wear black, preferably with a black veil, or mantilla.

	Cherie Blair with Pope Benedict

When the Queen met Pope John Paul II six years ago, she observed the code meticulously.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, wore black, but omitted the veil.

By contrast, Mrs Blair, a staunch Catholic, chose to exercise the "privilege du blanc", usually granted only to the wives of Catholic monarchs.

Her breach of the protocol was surprising, since she has kept closely to the Church's dress code in the past.

Mrs Blair may not have worn a hat to the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales but she mourned the passing of John Paul II in a mantilla.

Technically, only three women should wear white in the presence of the Pope.

They are Queen Sofia of Spain, Queen Paola of Belgium and Josephine Charlotte, the wife of Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg. Queen Sofia exercised her privilege in a meeting with the previous Pope in 2003.

Ann Widdecombe, the former Tory minister and a convert to Catholicism, was scathing about Mrs Blair.

"Even the Queen wore black to meet the Pope," she said. "This shows that she has a very grand idea of herself.

"She is a Catholic. She knows what the tradition is when meeting the Pope.

"She obviously thinks she is the first lady.

"My message to her is 'You are not a Catholic Queen, my dear, and you never will be.' "

Mrs Blair was in Rome for a Church-organised conference entitled "Vanishing Youth? Solidarity with Children and Young People in an Age of Turbulence".

She was invited as an expert and remained afterwards for a private meeting with the Pope. A spokesman for the Vatican declined to reveal what they had discussed.

[68 grunt]

I wonder who the idiot was who let her make this blunder.

I wonder who are the idiots who care?

[Conservative til I die]

That wasn't my allegation, but if you are having trouble deciphering the pattern I was referring to, it doesn't surprise me that you are also having trouble with this.

Spare us the games, dude. You were trying to be a comedian and compare the Church to some of the worst elements of Islam. Grow a pair and stand by what you said. Go all the way.

[Conservative til I die]

Dress code? Did Jesus ever give a crap what anyone wore? Come on folks, we're talking each human being achieving communion with the Holy Spirit within the power of a group. That same Holy Spirit sent all of us down here in our birthday suits.

So then why do you wear clothing?

[Conservative til I die]

And pride is hated by God because it is pride that caused the fall of Lucifer and of man.

Interesting you should say that, because the first word I thought of when I read your words is "hate".

[Havoc]

First off the forgeries you mention are not the basis of authority of the Bishop of Rome.

Au Contrare! The Donation of Constantine provided fraudulent legal authority and "rights" to claims on the Empire - what was left of it - at the time. Isidore and Gratian introduced false histories, forged canon law (which btw is still the basis of most of Roman Catholic Canon law), forged writings of early Popes, which were adopted as true, written into the liber pontificalus and were never corrected for obvious reasons. Those documents bolstered the claims of primacy and formed the basis for the schism between the East and the West. You, apparently, never bothered reading beyond what your church has to say on the subject. You just swallowed their indoctrination hook line and sinker, like buying a Charlatan's snake oil on the basis of his sales pitch - not on whether the pitch is true. You don't have to take my word for it. This discussion has been had countless times on this forum and The decretals of isidore, the donation, and gratian are web published nearly in their entirety. As to the liber pontificalus, it documents writings of supposed popes that prior to the time of Gregory didn't exist. It wasn't that they weren't "known", they merely did not exist. Pseudo Isidore et al provided the smoke and mirrors of 'early' fraudulent writings to give the appearance of some authority residing in Rome that had not existed.

So, to say they are not the basis of the authority of the Bishop of Rome is nuts. Indeed, they did make their claims prior to using those documents; but, it was those documents that got them any credible hearing. Absent those documents, they never would have because the claims had no merit on their own. That was the reason for the fraud. That is the reason for any fraud - to inject a sense of belonging, of correctness, of "authenticity" enough to allow the mischief at hand to prevail. When one forges US dollars, it would do little good to make them look Canadian. They have to look real in order to pass for currency. The aim isn't making pretty bills. It is, rather, buying power of those bills which is sought. And using them is fraud because the buying power isn't real - unless someone accepts the fraud - knowingly or unknowingly. The claims of Rome to some "primacy" over the entire Church fell on deaf ears until the appearance of Authenticity foold half the Church. The east knew better and thus the schism.

Second as to Peter being in Rome. There has been a constant Christian tradition that Peter was the Bishop of Rome and in fact died there.

No, I would beg to differ. There has been constant heresay from the Roman Catholic Quarter that this is so. There is no direct evidence that it is the case. And the first mention of it if memory serves is six or more generations after Peter supposedly died and by someone who himself had no direct knowledge. He cited no one and offered that it was so without any foundation. The statement is defrauded merely by looking at scripture and the movements of the Apostles and there disciples. Peter didn't have an office in Rome and had no business being there. Paul was there and Rome was Paul's ministry.. even if his ends were largely accoplished from Jail.

When Paul arrived in Rome, the Jews had not heard the Gospel. They'd heard of what was going on in Israel; but, Paul had to fill them in. Since Peter's primary mission was to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10: 6) aka to the Israelites themselves, he could not have preached in Rome or the Jews would have known. They didn't. Peter's mission was to the house of Israel and was later ammended to allow him to preach "ALSO" to the Gentiles. In other words, if Gentiles happened to be there too, he could speak to them. But his primary mission was never rescinded. Paul's primary mission was to the Gentiles. He shared that with no other apostle, all the others had primary missions to the Jews. Pauls was primary to the Gentiles. What that means is that Peter and the others were duty bound to seek out the Israelites wherever they were in the world and preach to them. That was the mission. And as the diaspora had led the israelites east away from Rome, that is where the Apostles had to go. That is why when Peter greets us from "Babylon", it is known that he is speaking from Babylon proper. You will attempt to argue otherwise; but, I can demonstrate that your citations which you will no doubt attempt to use have no authority or bearing. I will prefer to stick to the Bible and the movements because they have more to say.

The dates given for the writing of the Greek new testament cause an interesting problem that is without solution and blatent obvious. It destroys your claim about Peter on it's face. How? you ask. Simple. Because Paul sends from Rome for Mark who is, at the time, in Peter's employ as a scribe writing his first epistle. His first epistle. Note the relevance. He doesn't send across town, instead, he sends clear to Ephesus (2 Timothy 4) and requests Timothy to fetch Mark (from Peter's Employ - writing and hailing from Babylon proper), and bring him to Paul in Rome as he has need of him. On the return, he instructs Timothy to stop at troas and fetch his things there - including parchments (something for a scribe to write upon..). It's a long way from Ephesus to Babylon when you don't have cars or airplanes. You have to walk or use camel or horse.. If you bother reading further in Hebrews, I think chapter 13 from memory, Paul is still waiting for the arrival of Timothy and Mark. On the other hand, when II Peter is written, Mark is noticably absent and the book is so different in writing style that many questioned it's authorship. It wasn't the authorship that was different, just the penmanship because Mark wasn't penning Peter's words, Someone else was. Had Peter been in Rome for the writing of I Peter, Paul would never have sent to Ephesus to get someone who could go fetch Mark. He would have instead sent across town. Just plain common sense.. especially given how much he apparently needed Mark. You can handwring; but, there isn't any way you can get past those simple facts. They've been sitting plain as day in the scriptures for all this time. But if you don't know scripture, you wouldn't know any of what I just related.

So you can say "tradition" whatever. Who cares. I can cite heresay that says that the pope is a nazi. We're not interested in hearsay. We deal in facts.

Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter,fragment in Eusebius' Church History,II:25(c.A.D. 178),in NPNF2,I:130

Really? Is that so, or is it yet another of Eusebius' stretches of fancy? See below:

"If we are to undersand Constantine at all, we have to read Eusebius - with a grain of salt. We read much praise of the Emperor; and in his Life, which was Eusebius' last work, the praise swells into full-scale, highly coloured, romantic encomium, marred further by interpolations and additions. These Eulogies are echoed in another work, the Praise of Constantine. The ruler appears as a man of superhuman qualities, directed by God. And Eusebius, much too hopefully, believed that Constantine had created unity - not only unity between church and state, but unity within the church as well. In his History of the Church he appends imperial letters which showed how disgusted and horrified Constantine was by the divisions he had proved unable to prevent." "Unfortunately, however, Eusebius was not only a mediocre stylist but a depressingly unobjective historian.2 Despite his occasional touches of scholarly caution, and his refusals from time to time to believe improbabilities and lies (notably in the matter of Constantine's 'vision'), he falsified the emperor into a mere sanctimonious devotee, which he was not, and showed himself guilty of numerous contradictions and dishonest suppressions, and indeed erroneous statements of facts, or untruths. For, even if not deliberately fraudulent, Eusebius was indifferent to precision, for example in relation to chronology, and his quotations from sources are often inaccurate or garbled."

"Eusebius was learned enough, but incapable of assimilating what he had learnt. But no matter, for the works that he wrote were, in fact, intended as colorful romances, and that is what they were.." - Michael Grant, "Constantine the Great: The man and his times", Scribners, New York, 1993.

Citing Eusebius is about as useful as citing your hearsay "traditions". There is no grounding in fact. Eusebius cites works that literally do not exist and he is known to have had problems presenting historical fact instead of his own fancies. I assume we are just to take selectively the things you like as true and assume everything you don't like is in question? A little leaven leavens the whole lump. Once it's in there, you can't be sure what you can trust. If you can't independantly verify it, it isn't supportive. At best, it is circumstantial.

I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you." Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Romans,4(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:75

Ah, Iggy! Everyone seems to like Iggy. Problem is, nobody really knows what is the real Iggy? Did Iggy "pop"? Ok, bad pun. Of the letters of presumed Ignatius known to exist, none are known to be actually and unequivocably from Ignatius. There are multiple versions of each text - none alike. Longer and shorter versions, etc. Half are known and proven frauds and all of them are in question as none of them are verifiable. Again, When in question, it really provides no support.

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome,and laying the foundations of the Church." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:1:1(c.A.D. 180),in ANF,I:414

Again, hearsay supported by nothing and written presumabley 120 years after Peter died. Irenaeus, if the document is authentic, doesn't establish this as true but states it as though there were some common knowledge of the matter that no one else seemed aware of. In fact, I believe the letters of Clement, (early forgeries) were propounded to establish this very notion of Peter being in Rome because it was nowhere else established. Those forgeries existed for one reason, to establish Rome's claims. They had no other use. Had there been real evidence, they would not have needed the early Clementine forgeries or the later ones. For all we know, Irenaeus is referring to the Early Clementine forgeries when noting a presumed presence of Peter in Rome. It is nowhere established that this is so. But nobody on your side seems to do the critical thinking in noting the obvious.

The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome,Pope,1st Epistle to the Corinthians,1,59:1 (c.A.D. 96),in GILES,1-2

Clement? Really? Clement is as oft forged as Iggy. Will the real Clement please stand up. Guess we've been over that territory..

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110), in ANF,I:73

Ah, and Iggy again... Fruad, real, halucination after eating the worm? Spin the wheel and take a guess.

Again I can on and on. To say this is some late invention is ludricous.

No, it is quite accurate. There is no "Vicar of Christ" nor is there any actual "Primacy" established. The Eastern Orthodox blew much of Rome's interpolations out of the water because they had their own historical records in many cases and Rome's were shown spurious. There are web published examples of such fraud on Rome's part. The Papacy didn't exist until at least the 6th century AD. There may have been a Bishop of Rome. And Bishops may have written letters. But there was no primacy due the Bishop of Rome for any reason other than the fraudulent musings of the Romans. Plain and simple. Peter was never there, never preached there, never visited there and never had an office there. That, I can say without any reservation. There is no historical evidence of it.. not a shred. There is only Roman Catholic Hearsay and invention. The Eastern Orthodox knew nothing of it. And what is problematic there is that they were the beginnings of the Church, not Rome. They have fallen away from the path themselves; but, they knew better because they had been preached to by the apostles themselves long before Rome. That is why Rome couldn't dupe them and could only manage to dupe the West that did not have that grounding. Obvious as the nose on your face.

[Havoc]

Two guesses? Would that be You? Or perhaps the woman who wouldn't wear Black? I get so confused as to what constitutes "Anti-catholic". I'm just Christian. And I'm against people abusing the Christian scriptures and twisting them into philosophical pretzel religions that want to claim Christianity while thwarting it and presenting it for something it isn't. If that makes me "Anti-Catholic" then I'm glad to be. I love Catholics. I just hate fraud. So I give the Catholics the same respect I give Budhists. I tell them the truth. The greatest enemy of indoctrinated cultists and cult leaders seems to be the truth. And anyone threatening the propaganda by exposing it as fraud is an evil bigot. Boo!

[Havoc]

prostelyzation? rofl. Nah, just truth in advertising hour.
When someone claims their soap is the best, we don't all just up and accept the claim on it's face, we test it and challenge it. When the topic is the soul, some seem to think turning their brains off and accepting the claim on it's face is suddenly the way to go.. I don't. LOL. Rome seems to think these people have brains enough to know the truth themselves up till they become Romans, after that, they're told only the clergy knows and it's all mysterious - turn off the brain and let them do the thinking or you're anathema.. IE, cultic behavior. Interesting, no.. lol.

[BruceysMom]

Actually according to the "Ruling Elite" of
his day he did. Remember chasing the money lenders out of the temple? How about Him and his disciples eating wheat on the Sabbath? Then there was that awful Samaritan woman that no decent man would've spoken to. And can we forget Zaccheus? A horrible tax collector. Hey he even spoke to Saul (very very bad in my Jewish tradition) I don't think that Yeshua's co-religionist thought of him as polite.

[Conservative til I die]

Two guesses? Would that be You?

Nope! You have one more guess. Here's a hint: It's either you or me.

*snip* to the rest of your tired, played out bull$hit.

[Havoc]

Interesting you should say that, because the first word I thought of when I read your words is "hate".

Then you're projecting. There is nothing hateful in my words or my manner. You're just agitated at the challenge and angry. Your defense is to call me names instead of dealing with the facts. That's your problem, not mine. If you wish to act from hatred, you're in that mode alone. I have no reason to hate anyone - only the evil they are taught. And that evil is not a person, it is a doctrine. Detesting your doctrine is not detesting you. That you don't know the difference speaks volumes. If you do, then your projection is an argumentation device designed to win by deception and false accusation. Were your position sound, you would never ever have need of such base tactics. What next, claims of martyrdome? That is the typical pattern.

[Conservative til I die]

Then you're projecting. There is nothing hateful in my words or my manner. You're just agitated at the challenge and angry. Your defense is to call me names instead of dealing with the facts. That's your problem, not mine. If you wish to act from hatred, you're in that mode alone. I have no reason to hate anyone - only the evil they are taught. And that evil is not a person, it is a doctrine. Detesting your doctrine is not detesting you. That you don't know the difference speaks volumes. If you do, then your projection is an argumentation device designed to win by deception and false accusation. Were your position sound, you would never ever have need of such base tactics. What next, claims of martyrdome? That is the typical pattern.

Cry me a river. And by the way, no one here is claiming martyrdom. I just don't take kindly to played out, cliched, strawman-inducing self-righteous Protestants.

I'll do you a favor. I'll not respond to you anymore. As you probably figured, I have more pressing matters to attend to, such as slavishly obeying the leaders of my cult. You stick to spreading your special brand of Christian love. The love is very, very obvious.

[Havoc]

Ah, so it is you afterall. And in your hatred and venom, you're cussing. Imagine that, the fruits of your labor expounded. From the fullness of the heart the mouth cusseth..
You self-identified. That's the first step. :)

[Havoc]

Well, for one thing, there is nothing cliche here, just the truth. For another, I'm not a "Protestant" and never have been. I'm a "Christian". You're a Catholic and presumably a Roman by the attitude and venom on display. Four different religions. Mine is scriptural. The other three are philosophies that dabble in Christian ideas. That is the end result of trying to follow two masters, philosophy and Christ.
The philosophy wins out and Christ is just used as a sideshow for the philosophy. "Just the fax, ma'am. Just the fax"

[ordinaryguy]

Grow a pair and stand by what you said.

I stand by my words.

[Conservative til I die]

Well, for one thing, there is nothing cliche here, just the truth. For another, I'm not a "Protestant" and never have been. I'm a "Christian".

No dice. If you aren't a Catholic or Orthodox or any of the other Pre-Reformation type of Christians then you most certainly are a Protestant. That's "just the truth" like you just said.

[Conservative til I die]

I stand by my words.

You only made an implication, which you backed away from when challenged. Look, you were seeking to offend, and got what you wanted. Why play games?

[Havoc]

I came to my faith by the scriptures, not by protesting "Catholicism". I had no idea what Catholicism was until I studied it for years. And that was well after I became a Christian. One can hardly protest something one doesn't know exists. And one can hardly be a "protestant" or a "Catholic" by reading the Scriptures. Protestantism and Catholicism are philosophies that sheep dip themselves in Christian Ideas. They may have origins in Christianity; but, they've followed the master called "philosophy" for so long that the name of "Christ" becomes a rebuke and the scriptures a violation of their philosophy to be spurned and spat at when they contradict the other master. I am Christian because I follow the Lion of Judah, not the Philosophy of so and so - or worste, the philosophies of a bunch of so and so's that could scant agree with one another without flip-flopping every ten seconds like your "early fathers". Most of them you can seem to quote on any side of an argument. that isn't foundation. It's mud. And you're stuck in it.

So, No, I am not Protestant. Never have been and never will be. I am Christian. I listen to the Lion of Judah, You listen to your philosophers. The lion lives. Where are your philosophers. The lion saves. Your dead philosophers don't. Nor will your dead religion which they left you.
You want to compartmentalize me with a label so that you can be comfortable and blind. Too bad. I am Christian, not protestant nor Catholic. You've chosen your philosophy. I've chosen to shine the light on it so others can see the difference plainly. The light is a funny thing. Sleeping people who would rather stay asleep screech and pull the covers over themselves to hide from it. Those looking forward to the light awake themselves, throw the covers off and bask in the sonshine. People used to darkness will spend eternity in it. Don't know how that's a comfort; but, oddly to some it is...

[NYer]

Perhaps this will explain the 'blunder'.

* * * * *

ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome

---

Code: ZE06042829

Date: 2006-04-28

Cherie Blair Gets Private Audience With Pope

In Rome for Conference on Youth

VATICAN CITY, APRIL 28, 2006 (ZENIT.org).- Cherie Blair, the wife of Tony Blair, Britain's prime minister, was unexpectedly invited by Benedict XVI for a 10-minute private audience.

Today's meeting took place while Blair, a practicing Catholic and human rights lawyer, is in Rome to participate in the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the theme: "Vanishing Youth? Solidarity with Young People in an Age of Turbulence."

Blair, a barrister who is a Queen's Counsel, was listed by the Vatican as an outside expert.

In a press statement, the United Kingdom's ambassador to the Holy See, Francis Campbell, said that the meeting between the two was a surprise for Blair, and that she was "thrilled" by the unexpected conversation, which took place in the Pope's library.

Blair, mother of four, commented to ZENIT about the assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: "I said today that what I think is really important is that we should listen to our young people and have faith in them, and that through the family and through making space and time for our children then together we can learn from each other as to how we can meet these challenges."

"It's a great thing that there are some youth here to listen and who will give us their feedback at the end ... In the true spirit of learning and sharing together," she said.

When asked how the Church can translate what is being discussed here at the Vatican into national strategies for helping children worldwide, she said: "The Church has a very important role to play in this of course, because the Church is one of the very few organizations which actually is everywhere in the world."

Universal

"So, the dialogue we have here has resonance across the world, but it has to be a dialogue of belief, of ideas and values, which can then be used in a pile of particular social and political contexts across the world," she added.

"There is not an absolute, 100% answer for everywhere," continued Blair, "but what I do think is interesting is that we can learn from each other. I spoke of some more practical examples but fundamentally it's values, the promotion of an inherent and common human dignity and concentrating on seeing God in the other that matters."

Blair added: "It's a message we can't stress enough!"

Catholic Ping List
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[NYer]

Perhaps this will explain the 'blunder'.

* * * * *

ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome

---

Code: ZE06042829

Date: 2006-04-28

Cherie Blair Gets Private Audience With Pope

In Rome for Conference on Youth

VATICAN CITY, APRIL 28, 2006 (ZENIT.org).- Cherie Blair, the wife of Tony Blair, Britain's prime minister, was unexpectedly invited by Benedict XVI for a 10-minute private audience.

Today's meeting took place while Blair, a practicing Catholic and human rights lawyer, is in Rome to participate in the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the theme: "Vanishing Youth? Solidarity with Young People in an Age of Turbulence."

Blair, a barrister who is a Queen's Counsel, was listed by the Vatican as an outside expert.

In a press statement, the United Kingdom's ambassador to the Holy See, Francis Campbell, said that the meeting between the two was a surprise for Blair, and that she was "thrilled" by the unexpected conversation, which took place in the Pope's library.

Blair, mother of four, commented to ZENIT about the assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: "I said today that what I think is really important is that we should listen to our young people and have faith in them, and that through the family and through making space and time for our children then together we can learn from each other as to how we can meet these challenges."

"It's a great thing that there are some youth here to listen and who will give us their feedback at the end ... In the true spirit of learning and sharing together," she said.

When asked how the Church can translate what is being discussed here at the Vatican into national strategies for helping children worldwide, she said: "The Church has a very important role to play in this of course, because the Church is one of the very few organizations which actually is everywhere in the world."

Universal

"So, the dialogue we have here has resonance across the world, but it has to be a dialogue of belief, of ideas and values, which can then be used in a pile of particular social and political contexts across the world," she added.

"There is not an absolute, 100% answer for everywhere," continued Blair, "but what I do think is interesting is that we can learn from each other. I spoke of some more practical examples but fundamentally it's values, the promotion of an inherent and common human dignity and concentrating on seeing God in the other that matters."

Blair added: "It's a message we can't stress enough!"

Catholic Ping List
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[Havoc]

Who says anyone succeeded them. We joined them. But if you prefer the language, the scripture tells you plainly in Christ's command to them. He commanded them to make disciples of us all teaching us all the things commanded them. All things - that means every prerogative they had, we have. Everyone of them and all of us who are actually Christian. That is backed up in the statement that we are a kingdom of priests. Doesn't get anymore clear.

On the other hand, when you're trying to subjugate people for power and profit, that truth is anathema to your attempt to proffer that some exclusive priesthood exists and that the clergy is it. Christ obliterated that model with the new covenant removing the priesthood from the exclusive domain of those who were abusing it and making us all responsible for our own souls. If a priest can't hold you hostage to your sin by selling the animal to you at a price you can't afford or putting burdens upon you that God did not, then you are indeed free. Not a profitable message from a Catholic clergy point of view. If they can go straight to God, why on earth do they need you.. simple, they don't. They have the capacity that God gave them to understand and know the truth for themselves. If you rely on their 10% for your power and poshness, you can hardly let them believe that truth. ;)

How much is 10% of the collective income of a billion people? If I weren't a Christian, lying would be quite appealing given that kind of prosperity. I could be rich, dress in white and walk around knowing each day that millions are hanging on my every whim.. Boy that could be a real ego kick. One might even get to think he was the stand in for Christ. Funny thing about Christ's priesthood though. Had your "early fathers" had any clue what they were talking about, they'd know that Christ's priesthood by definition is non-transferrable and cannot be shared. Thusly, there can be no standin or "Vicar". It's an impossibility and no philosophical claptrap or logic games can get around it. The Melchizedek priesthood is not transferrable and is not shared.

They also didn't know what they were talking about with regard to "Binding and loosing".. a Judaic term that is limited to interpreting existing Scripture. It does not in anyway lend authority to propound new doctrine. You can also look that up. You became party to what was a bunch of guys hijacking a religion they didn't know anything about save on it's surface.