Apostles were (believed to be) witnesses of the Resurrection;
bishops, based in cities, are successors of the Apostles;
an archbishop is superior to other national bishops;
the Western Church recognizes the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) as supreme;
the cardinals elect the Pope;
thus, a Cardinal Archbishop is (nearly) as high as you can get.
In the alpha timeline, there is an unexplained ecclesiastical position of "archcardinal."
The Archcardinal Albin is:
intelligent and educated;
a high noble of France, which includes the British Isles;
a prince of the church, which is more important in his timeline;
duty bound to order heretics burned and rebellious peasants massacred;
intelligent enough to regard magic as a set of technologies and to realize that he will learn more from a prisoner by patience than by torture.
In the Time Patrol universe, Albin is an important figure comparable to Popes or secular rulers in other timelines.
8 comments:
I should have added that the Bishop of Rome is regarded as supreme because he is believed to be the direct successor of the chief Apostle. Thus: God; the divine incarnation; his chief Apostle; that Apostle's direct successor. My thought is that the first bishops had known the Apostles/witnesses whereas someone becoming a bishop now is no closer to the evidence than anyone else.
I came across a Protestant "Anglo-Israel" theory that tried to establish a divinely appointed authority: the Ten Lost Tribes migrated to Ireland, where the tribe of Dan became the Tuatha Danaan; the Irish colonized Scotland (the name "Scotia" was transferred from Ireland to Scotland); King James VI of Scotland became James I of England; thus, British monarchs are in direct line of succession from Saul, David and Solomon; God's Covenant with the Jews is now with their descendants, the British, who are the Chosen People; the British Empire is the fulfillment of the Promise to Abraham. (I don't know what Anglo-Israelists say now.)
Hi, Paul!
But we Catholics and Orthodox believe VALID bishops were ordained to the episcopacy in unbroken succession from the apostles, who ordained the first bishops. And we Catholics argue from Scripture and Tradition that Our Lord appointed Peter as the first of the Popes--and that Peter governed the Church from several locations before he moved to Rome. As examples of what is meant by "tradition," I would cite sources as early as Clement of Rome's "Letter to the Corinthians" (written around AD 90) St. Ignatius of Antioch's deferentially addressed letter to the Church in Rome (circa AD 107), and St. Irenaeus of Lyons list of the early popes and his comments about their authority in AGAINST HERESIES (written around AD 180).
As for the nonsense about British Israelitism, don't forget how Poul Anderson had Sir Malachi expounding that theory to Prince Rupert of the Rhine in A MIDSUMMER TEMPEST.
Sean
Sean,
Anderson covers everything! Anglo-Israel is indeed nonsense but a fascinating example of how people interpret scripture and history to suit their own purposes. In the Classical tradition, British monarchs descend from the Trojan royal house!
I must google for any current "Anglo-Israel." The book I read, published early 20th century, interpreted the US as fulfilling the Biblical role of "Manasseh."
The 10 tribes were "lost," i.e, ceased to exist. They did not go to the British Isles or, indeed, to North America (Book of Mormon).
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
Again, I'm in a rush, but I want to comment more fully when I have more time!
Sean
Sean,
Please do.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
The nonsense of British Israelitism is what you get when the Bible is interpreted thru the prism of the Protestant doctrine of "sola scriptura." Luther claimed anyone guided by our Lord the Spirit would infallibly understand the Scriptures correctly. He was reduced to despairing disillusionment when sola scriptura merely created a chaos of constantly splitting and resplitting Protestants sects with multitudinous and contradictory interpretations.
As a Catholic I believe the Scriptures can be infallilbly and correctly interpreted only by the Magisteriurm of the Church either when the Pope speaks ex cathedra in matters of faith and morals. Or by an ecumenical council convoked and presided over by the Pope. I read somewhere that a mere SIX texts from the Bible has been interpreted by such solemn and authoritative means.
Yes, you are correct, the northern tribes of Israel simply disappeared when the Assyrians destroyed the Northern Kingdom. Albeit, the Samaritans are descended from those Jews not carried off into exile by Sargon V and the pagans the Assyrians settled in the former kingdom.
As for the British royal family, I think the earliest CERTAIN forebear of Her Majesty (altho not in the male line) is King Egbert of Wessex, who ruled from about 804 to 838. Historians still debate the antecedents of Egbert, with some saying he was actually from Kent, and others arguing that he was a genuine member of the Wessex royal family.
Yes, I have heard of the fanciful connections some Britons have made attempting to argue their kings were descended from the Trojans!
And I dismiss the Mormon claims as being as absurd as British Israelitism.
Sean
Sean,
Thank you for a comprehensive response. I did not know that only six texts had been authoritatively interpreted.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
Because, unless driven by the necessity of responding to a controversy or refuting a heresy, the Church does not like to use such heavy artillery as infallibility.
Sean
Post a Comment