Talk:Alister Sharpton

the arms' decoration you used are for the bishop's see, the bishop himself would decorate it with a green version of the hat at figure D:

http://www.newadvent.org/images/07243apx.jpg

--Marc Pasquin 02:42, 10 November 2005 (PST)

Well, what I did was take the arms of the Bishop of New Orleans *here* and change the shield. So, given that, have I done something particularly wrong? Zahir 05:59, 10 November 2005 (PST)

Oh! I see what you mean. Duh. I'm uploading something different. Zahir 09:42, 10 November 2005 (PST)

QSS

This article is up for becoming QSS. Any objections? Zahir 21:11, 3 March 2006 (PST)

I'm a little confused at how an active Bishop can abandon his parishes and run the Province? BoArthur

He has two jobs is all. I should point out that a bishop was once President of Cyprus and in the past a bishop was just as much a temporal lord as a spiritual one (at least in practical terms). Besides, his parishes are within the province. Zahir 21:56, 3 March 2006 (PST)

I just know how draining it is to administer both, and I'm only concerned about The Church *there* and how it would deal with this. I know that for protestants, it doesn't matter, but I know that the Catholic church seems to have a great desire NOT to be in temporal affairs at present. I'm not shooting down this article, I'm asking a question for further enlightenment to Catholicism...could his Rite be much more relaxed about things like this? I think that the Members that are interested in Catholicism there should weigh in about the subject, just so we have a clear picture how Bishop Sharpton has been able to do both jobs at once. BoArthur 22:01, 3 March 2006 (PST)

An excellent point! I confess to not even being familiar with the differences between the several Rites of IB's Church. Can someone weigh in please? Zahir 06:36, 4 March 2006 (PST)

Putting asside the rite for a moment, another thing to consider is that *there* the catholic church is also head of its own country (which unlike *here* actualy *is* a country). Some people might be weary of having their province being run by someone whose ultimate allegiance is to the leader of another country. I'm sure it could be spined doctored to sound less ominous but it is bound to be a worry.

So, with that in mind, maybe he is not a clergyman of the Roman Apostolic Catholic Church but of some type of breakaway catholic church ? --Marc Pasquin 08:01, 4 March 2006 (PST)

I have to point out that there have been Catholic Priests who served in the US Congress *here* without, evidently, any conflict. And according to the IB site: The Pope is, in fact, chiefly a diocesan bishop. Patriarch of the West. Next, he is also the chief bishop and leader of the Roman or Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. In this capacity, he is an equal to the other patriarchs of various rites, such as the British, Antiochene, etc. Ecumenical and Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church. In the Catholic understanding, Orthodoxy is in a state of schism and the Pope is the legitmate head of Christendom in apostolic descent from St. Peter, leader of the Apostles. In this capacity, the Pope of Rome has the right and duty to speak with Authority on matters of faith and morals that all Catholics must adhere to as matters of religious doctrine. Yet in terms of temporal authority, there is this: Vatican Council also addressed matters of the Pope of Rome's temporal authority. Namely, the Pope of Rome remains the ultimate authority in the States, but that power is reserved for vetoes in grave instances... Thus it seems in theory no more reason to suppose a priest would be any more beholden to obey the Pope than any other Catholic. Or any less.

Having said that, I'm wondering if perhaps he is Cambrian Rite, which from what I've read has a more "Orthodox" flavor? Zahir 08:21, 4 March 2006 (PST)

First off, as far as I can tell, a priest becoming a congressman is not the same as becoming premier. I'm pretty sure at least one priest was a senator in canada can't think of any catholic priest becoming a premier anywhere (if I'm wrong, do tell).

Secondly, The exact, de jure, nature of the pope power *there* would probably not have that big of an influence when his opponents would attack him. Like I said, you could spin doctored it but the problem would remain in the mind of some. Some people raised concerns about Kennedy's potential "divided loyalty" and he wasn't even a priest and the same problem existed in England.

As to your other point, why do you think being of the cambrian rite would be better ? (unless your thinking of him being married). --Marc Pasquin 09:45, 4 March 2006 (PST)

Can't think of a Catholic priest becoming a premier, but an Orthodox Bishop was President of Cyprus. But while only one Catholic has ever been President of the US, there have been several Catholic GM's of the NAL. But I suspect that Cambrian Rite would probably be better, because there seems less of a sense of such priests being "under" the Pope. No, I wasn't thinking of his being married. Zahir 13:05, 4 March 2006 (PST)

Counting Down

This article is up for de-proposalizing. Zahir 06:47, 5 May 2006 (PDT)

Follow-up: Was the whole Sharpton being a bishop and secular leader resolved? If so, what was the resolution? BoArthur

I wrote that he was on sabbatical. Does that cover it? Zahir 11:24, 5 May 2006 (PDT)