In case of a global catastrophe (nuclear war or something similar), a big majority of the global population would die, including pope, all bishops, all priests, all deacons. In all churches with apostolic succession (Catholic, Orthodox,...). However, there will be a small community of lay catholic people in one place. Let's say ten thousands, including theologically educated adults. What would be subsequent life of Catholic church? - Would catholic church exist? I am not asking on the sacramental life that would be most likely limited to baptism and matrimony only. I am asking whether we would speak about catholic church. Not just believers, but church itself. Are there any supportive or declining references in the official teaching of the church for "yes" or "no"?

Roman Catholics have a hierarchical system within their church with cardinals, then archbishops, then bishops, then priests and then deacons (as i have shown below) but where in the Bible do we see the hierarchical system of the Roman Catholic Church?

I like my Bishop, but he has an awful plan to reconstruct our diocese which includes dissolving every single parish and I want to put a stop to it. How can lay Catholics reach the papal nuncio or whoever is above our Bishop in order to veto his actions?

What happens if the Cardinals get stuck with a Pope they don't like? Do they still have to obey him?

Can a provincial superior be a member of a religious house and therefore under authority of local superior?

I have heard a claim that during the early Church, bigger churches had leadership positions over smaller churches, which later developed into the idea of a single bishop ruling a dicosese. Are there any examples of this?

> [1 Timothy 1:3, KJV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+timothy+1:3&version=KJV)
> As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into > Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other > doctrine > > [Titus 1:5, KJV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+1:5&version=KJV)
> For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order > the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had > appointed thee These two verses seem to indicate a certain "hierarchy layer" between elders and apostles. Paul is clearly an apostle and he appoints Titus to ordain elders in every city of the island of Crete. On one hand, Titus was appointed by Paul, which means that Titus is in position of submission to Paul the Apostle. However, Titus has the power to ordain elders in cities of Crete, which means that those elders would be in position of submission to Titus. Thus, we have the following structure: elders -> Titus -> apostles. I wonder how those Christian groups that deny any such hierarchy levels in their governance—for example, Congregationalists—explain these verses.

I'm familiar with what "bishop" typically means in mainline, churches. It specifically points to an overseer of several other pastors and/or their congregations. Some African-American Christian religious figures, or leaders of "historically black churches", use the title "Bishop", but in my estimation, they may be leaders of a congregation, but not overseers of other congregations. Q: What does the term mean in these contexts, and how is the term derived?

Most Lutheran synods in the United States, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), have bishops as part of their church hierarchy just like many other mainline Protestants. Why does the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod not have bishops and instead have a “President” and similar leadership?

This question isn't about a specific situation but was brought on when I read about a few "prophecies" in the US claiming that Trump would win the 2020 election - a prophecy we now know to be false. They claim that God is telling them these things - there are many people that follow these speakers and are led astray by them. Is there any responsibility on others within a Church (of any denomination) to denounce these people using the Lord's name to further their own goals? i.e. if a Catholic Priest were to make such claims and so publicly should the Pope step in to separate this view from that of the Catholic faith to minimise the damage done to that congregation?

What, if any, ability does a priest or bishop have in order to stop a brother priest who has confessed to molestation of minors, according to Canon Law? Very often I hear, and am personally aware of local priests, being re-assigned; so presumably some action can be taken in response to a confession like this. What can a priest do without breaking the seal of the sacrament? What is the strongest action he can take to stop the molester?

I was looking through the list of appointments to a nearby parish and noticed that the Bishop is mixing things up, but not really changing much. Two parishes in a nearby city are linked, with two priests taking care of souls at both of them. They currently swap masses: Here's an obfuscated version of the appointment: - Rev. Fr. Zack Nelson, to parochial administrator, Saint Patrick Parish, Zanesville, per canon 539, from parochial vicar, Saint William Parish and Saint Patrick Parish, Zanesville. - Rev. Fr. Mario VanVleck, from parochial administrator, Saint Patrick Parish, Zanesville, per canon 539, remaining as pastor, Saint William Parish, Zanesville. So from what I can surmise they moved both priests from the arrangement where they worked both parishes and gave Fr. Zack a new title. But, it looks like St. Patrick Parish doesn't have a pastor in this arrangement (it is the smaller of the two parishes). So what's the difference between the changes in status from parocial vicar to parochial administrator? And what does it mean that St. Patrick does not have an official pastor?

Aside from the functions that both man and women can take in the Church (they can be lay members of the congregations- single or married, they both can be consecrated single persons, they can be religious brothers same as women can be religious sisters), there are some specific and honorable functions in Catholic Church designed only for men- whole decisive hierarchy of the Church. It seems, that even if we reject the idea of female priesthood, there is still no **"corresponding" specific function in the Catholic Church for women,** that only they could do in the Church. **Is it possible that Jesus handed over only precise functions only to the men, and had no precise idea for the women** in his Church, or is it rather the disciples and evangelists, who, as being men of these times, cared little for whatever concerned women, and simply ignored the role designed for the women, and focused on developing a patriarchal structure of the Church? Where will I find reliable resources to dig on that topic? What can be done in order to provide more recognition of female role in Catholic Church? I was raised in very conservative Catholic family, and for a long time I was simply accepting that it is the way it must be if it was always so. But since some this model disturbs me more and more and does not help at all to endure in catholicism. I would appreciate if some compassionate person wold be willing to help me in my struggles, I am not trying to fight anybody here, I smimply try to understand. I hope to find some understanding among you, thank you in advance

In the Archives of the Archbishopric of Durango (Mexico) there are a number of documents about _concursos de curatos_, or priestly concourses, which were used for hiring into vacant parishes and cathedral positions. I read a blog post about another _concurso_ that required two days of analyzing Church documents in Latin, translating and commenting on them in Spanish. It looks like a formalized, competititive hiring process. When did these competitions run? Who chose the winners?

I had this question for a while and I just can't find the answer. Whenever I go to church all I hear, is that boys can do this, that and other things, but the girls can only listen and sing. It makes me feel very sad and depressed since I feel like I'm only an object that men has in order to not feel lonely .

I am trying to learn about Catholic clerical posts called _"cura"_ and _"cura teniente"_ in rural 1700s Mexico. _"Teniente"_ generally means second-in-command, like _lieutenant_. I am tempted to translate the title as "assistant priest" but this specific term refers to priests of the cathedral chapter, so I'm not sure of its correct name in English. So in a parish with both sorts of priests, one would outrank the other? If so, I would like to know what to call those positions. Thank you!

Wikipedia doesn't seem to provide a fleshed-out etymology of this title. Who first held it? When did its usage become applied to all archdeacons. And do archdeacons ever have issues with the title, which doesn't necessarily indicate their priestly/diaconal status?

What scriptural basis has traditionally been put forth by the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches to support the idea of monarchical episcopate (the idea that there must be only one bishop over a city or a region)?

As I grew up, I was accustomed to referring to a cardinal by inserting his title between his first and last names. Thus, for example, I was confirmed by the then-archbishop of St. Louis, John Cardinal Carberry. This was distinct from the usage in the case of an archbishop (so, for example, the next archbishop of St. Louis, Archbishop John May). More recent usage that I've seen indicates that this usage seems to have been discontinued, or at least fallen out of favor.. The [official biography of the current archbishop of Newark](https://www.rcan.org/offices-and-ministries/archbishops-office/tobin-biography) refers to him as "Joseph Cardinal Tobin". But other carefully written sources such as the American Catholic magazine [*Crux*](https://cruxnow.com/cardinals/2018/09/02/cardinal-tobin-reportedly-declined-to-investigate-mccarrick-misconduct-rumors/) or the political journal [*The American Conservative*](https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/cardinal-tobin-vigano-sadness/) use the phrasing "Cardinal Joseph Tobin". Is there a usage preferred or designated by the Vatican or a more local group of bishops? Or does it depend on a given style book?

Some actions incur automatic excommunication . While it is debated whether a Pope can lose the office via heresy , what happens if a pope commits a sin *other* than heresy, such as abortion or violating the seal of confession, which carries an equal penalty? Is the Pope subject to the automatic excommunication? If so, would the election of a new Pope be called for? What would then happen (in terms of the Papacy) if the excommunicated Pope repented and rejoined the church?