Blogger certainly fancies no personal papacy
The difference is that the Church (the pope or her bishops) speak, that is because of the laying of the hands of the apostles that allowed them. "How can they preach unless they are sent?" When Blogger speaks that is his opinion only. Point Blogger to any authority -- true or Protestant -- and he will take it or leave it according to his own mindset. That is pride, mother of all heresies, in operation.
I'm wondering what sorts or instances of pride I as a Catholic need to be looking out for. The devil walketh about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, after all, and I'm TRYING to resist him, steadfast in the faith, but it's so easy to slip into some sins, maybe all sins, and I guess I think Bunyan is right that there is "a way to hell even from the gates of heaven."
I wasn't aware that the apostles were still alive to lay hands on Benedict XVI. Methuselah ain't got nothing on Paul!
The difference is that the Church (the pope or her bishops) speak, that is because of the laying of the hands of the apostles that allowed them. "How can they preach unless they are sent?" When Blogger speaks that is his opinion only.
Apparently under your view, SOMEONE must be the pope. If a person does not acknowledge your pope as his pope, then he MUST have some other pope. This could take the form of some other ivory tower earthly authority, or in most cases, simply the person himself, as many Catholics have told me on FR. This Catholic assertion is simply wrong. Our side does not need or want a pope. We do not need a single human being to instruct us as to what our opinions and beliefs are. That is for you because you want to believe it. That is fine with me, but it is incorrect for you to project your requirement of such a human leader on us. It is interesting that for many other good Christians you give a TOTAL pass on the requirement, but somehow, every Protestant MUST have a pope, and of course it is always that Protestant himself. Is that really fair?