Does anybody else find this somewhat bothersome? Or is it just me being picky? I think assistants to the bishops should be clergymen lower in the hierarchal line, not a fellow bishop subordinated to such a position. Am I being a jerk for thinking this?
This came up because my bishop (who's 90 or a few years older than that) is getting an auxiliary bishop, which I understand that he's old and probably will retire soon. If the "auxiliary" bishop is the next in line to assume Met. Isaiah's spot, I guess I can see that. I admit, I'm a bit nervous who will eventually take his place.
Is that how it works at times with auxiliary bishops, Fr. Matt?