Replies

America reputed the divine right of kings and all that malarkey long ago. It must be likewise invalid when applied to a faith, especially when applied to a faith, else the founding fathers were flat wrong to create a representative republic and should have replicated a monarchy.

Please make this point clearer. If you are implying that the papacy follows the hereditary model that the founding fathers repudiated, then you are mistaken. If you are implying that the founding fathers were possibly wrong for creating a rep. gov. then you would need to elaborate.

The question I have is: Why a priori should there be any relationship between Church polity and civil polity? Should hospital procedures and policies be determined by plebiscite?

"I'm sorry, that LOOKS like a aggressive malignancy. Of course we'll have to run the results of the test past the community and then debate the proper treatment. The elections shouldn't take more than a year or two."

I'm not saying a Church is like a hospital in every respect, but it might be in enough respects to make a representative form of government inappropriate.

Besides if it were a matter of representation, then the Baptists, the Roman Catholics and in a few areas the LDS folks would take over. OR you can bet this idea of "joining by dropping by" would undergo some examination as people sought to "qualify" for a ballot.

But then the only reason I allow the US to be as it is is that I can't get made king. If I could, y'all could forget politics and go about your business.

According to Catholic doctrine, the power to "bind and loose" was passed to Peter and thereon down to the Catholic church. Save the physical blood angle, there is no difference in that and the right of royal families divinely mandated to provide rulers.