“In an attempt to argue against the papacy this ‘scholar’, Steve Hays from Triablogue has invented a new ecclesial typology as to how the church is composed. He now has compared the Church to a flock of birds, or a school of fish! Just when you think you have heard it all. I guess this guy has never read the Scriptures where Jesus refers to the flock as being sheep, which need a shepherd? If this is the best argument against the papacy as being the visible head of the Church, Catholics have nothing to fear. Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep, not swim like a school of fish or fly as a formation of birds. While movements of flocks of birds or schools of fish are fascinating, the analogy is not a Biblical one. What he is trying to accomplish here is a mystery indeed.”
Clearly da “champ” who penned dis reply is past his pwime.
My post consisted of two back-to-back quotes. The first quote was a stock argument for the “necessity” of the papacy. It didn’t quote Scripture.
Instead, it tried to mount an argument from analogy, appealing to human experience, viz. “The Church without a supreme Ruler would be like an army without a general, a navy without an admiral, a sheepfold without a shepherd, or like a human body without a head,” &c.
It went on to claim that without a visible leader, “anarchy” is “inevitable.”
Since the argument appealed to natural phenomena and human institutions to prove its point, that criterion cuts both ways. So I cited the example of teamwork in the absence of a visible leader: the formation flight of birds (and schools of fish).
Although they have no visible leader, they move in unison with military precision.
This is sufficient to disprove the facile argument that unless Christians have a visible leader (i.e. the pope), they will degenerate into anarchy.
Did I say that’s the best argument against the papacy? Irrelevant. It was a counterargument against a popular argument for the papacy. It only has to rebut the opposing argument on its own terms.
If a Catholic apologist is going use nature as a frame of reference to prove the papacy, then I can do the same thing in return to disprove the papacy. The standard is a double-edged sword.
Sorry if dat’s too subtle for da “champ.” Perhaps he’s been bonked one too many times on da noggin.