[malakhi]

I repeat, where's the falsehood in this, and I mean theological falsehood?

If you cannot see the glaring falsehood of a man proclaiming that other men must be subject to him in order to avoid eternal damnation, then nothing I say to you is going to convince you otherwise. Perhaps, for the benefit of those of us who just don't 'get it', you can point out where the theological truth is in this?

He is asserting the supremacy of the spiritual authority over the secular authority.

I don't think 'spiritual authority' has anything to do with this, aside from its use as a cover for the pope's assertion of his own 'secular' authority.

[RobbyS]

I don't think 'spiritual authority' has anything to do with this, aside from its use as a cover for the pope's assertion of his own 'secular' authority. You are aware that this goes back to the investiture controversy and the efforts of the church to maintain its corporate independence from that of the Emperor.

But, of course you are right. This is why Havoc's using this as an example of papal error is wrong. No dogmatic principle is asserted here.

I don't think 'spiritual authority' has anything to do with this, aside from its use as a cover for the pope's assertion of his own 'secular' authority. ( I am curious, though : Do you deny the right of spiritual authority to challenge the state's claim to loyalty over its citizens?)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I'm curious angelo, do you own one of those cheesehead hats?