Diogenes says there’s a distinction to be made between the leadership to which we refer when speak of a bishop’s office and the leadership of a bishop over and above his office, but inherent in his person. Now the former inheres in the office according to Catholic ecclesiology, but is the latter desirable in an of itself?, he asks.
An interesting question with interesting examples provided.
The primary purpose of a bishop, or more appropriately, “an apostle” id to preach the Gospel and ward off all errors that will mislead the faithful away from the Gospel message.
The Apsotle is subject to the same “faith” as all of the people of God. Hence, they are to give us the shining example of “fidelity” of discipleship. Tis is the “spiriutal leadership” that is essential and inherent to the office of bishop. He also governs only when the bishop is “one with Peter” .
I’m sorry that I did not take time to “review” my posting. There are erros in type. is not id—- this not Tis—
P.S. If a bishop can be proven not to be one with Peter, then that bishop loses his authority to govern. Hence the faithful have a reason not to give this bishop obedience. He is still a bishop with all sacramental powers, and as the official priest to offer Christ’s Sacrifice. This the faithful must always acknowledge.
Canon law does so state as far as “governing”. Will look it up and then post the Canon