The Pope is bishop of Rome and has the ultimate responsibility for the preservation of the faith. He cannon alter anything in the doctrines of the Church, but he can augment and clarify. This is consistent with the St. Peter of the New Testament.
Some imperial trappings of modern papacy might be off-putting to the outsiders, but they are not the essence of the Papacy.
Peter offered very little of spiritual revelation in the bible.. except for his gross mistakes.. All other writers of the new testestament and the old one too.. were much deeper and richer in thought.. and spiritual insight..
Peter was pretty much a spiritual doofus.. or schelmiel.. or even schmozzle.. The Barney Fife of the New Testament.. Useing him as a model should be re-thunk... Ya think?..
Some imperial trappings of modern papacy might be off-putting to the outsiders, but they are not the essence of the Papacy.
= = =
I hope not. But one would not always know that given the behavior of those under the Pope.
And, I contend that such trappings are indeed part and parcel of what set up the Roman Bishop as THE POPE to begin with--a political imperial mindset and the troops and political clout to make it stick.
Had nothing to do with Peter. Had nothing to do with any line of baton passing. Had nothing to do with the passing of any keys to The Kingdom. Had nothing to do with the Roman Bishop being more righteous, holy, humble, sanctified, anointed than any of the other Bishops.
Only had to do with political power mongering and clout.
History, at least, is rather clear on that point.
Thankfully.