Do Anglicans believe that Christ founded the Church on Peter?

[GKC]

It will not surprise you that there is no official Anglican stance on this or on anything else you can think of. I cannot say how common it is among ACs; I don’t think it is uncommon.

**Anglicans subscribe to the authority of the scriptures, councils and early fathers, it was usual to term the latter,‘the Greek fathers ,of the early centuries.’ If we are to view the attitude of traditional anglicans , i.e., not the Anglo-Catholics or their opposites the Latitudinarians both of whom are now dominated by Neo Anglicans,] we have to look to tradition for answers and it is in the comments of the early Catholic fathers that we find the answers to Matt.16. In this we follow the precedent encouraged by S. Vincent of Lerins. **

AS LFD says, it depends on which Anglicans you ask. Check with LFD first, to ensure you’re asking the right sort of Anglican.

GKC

 

[Spengler47]

The original Anglican position on the papacy was defined in 1532 when Parliament passed the Act of Supremacy, declaring that the Bishop of Rome, that is, the pope, had no more authority in England than “any other foreign bishop.” However, Anglo-Catholic Anglicans like myself would argue that, from very early in the history of the church, the bishop of Rome was accepted as the chief patriarch of the church. In a reunited Christian church, there would have to an office of chief bishop. Logically and historically, that position would be exercised by the pope. The chief problem for Anglicans, is the doctrine of papal infalliblity. We view that doctrine as an innovation (1870) not based on scripture and without a firm basis in church tradition.

 

[GKC]

The original Anglican position on the papacy was defined in 1532 when Parliament passed the Act of Supremacy, declaring that the Bishop of Rome, that is, the pope, had no more authority in England than “any other foreign bishop.” However, Anglo-Catholic Anglicans like myself would argue that, from very early in the history of the church, the bishop of Rome was accepted as the chief patriarch of the church. In a reunited Christian church, there would have to an office of chief bishop. Logically and historically, that position would be exercised by the pope. The chief problem for Anglicans, is the doctrine of papal infalliblity. We view that doctrine as an innovation (1870) not based on scripture and without a firm basis in church tradition.

The Supremacy Act was 1534. But the language relative to “any other foreign bishop” occurs in the Abjuration of Papal Supremacy, passed by the clergy, in the Convocations of Canterbury and York, same year.

GKC

 

[Spengler47]

I think GKC for the corrections. I see my Reformation history is a bit rusty.

 

[GKC]

I think GKC for the corrections. I see my Reformation history is a bit rusty.

You were close enough, the point was the same. But as others here can attest, I’m a nuisance.

And anyway, it was at Henry’s direction that both the measures were enacted.

GKC

 

[Spengler47]

You’re not a nuisance at all. I’m writing from my office and my reference works are at home, otherwise I would have checked the dates and the specific documents. Thanks for correcting my errors.

And yes, parliament and the church convocations did the king’s bidding. Of course, we should also not overlook the growing tension between many Englishmen and the papacy. It had had been building for quite some time; it found expression long before Henry’s reign in Lollardy. The complaint of many of the English reformers was that Henry didn’t push things nearly far enough. Many of them would have preferred a Church of England reformed on the German or Genevan model. Henry’s policies were generally conservative.

 

[GKC]

You’re not a nuisance at all. I’m writing from my office and my reference works are at home, otherwise I would have checked the dates and the specific documents. Thanks for correcting my errors.

And yes, parliament and the church convocations did the king’s bidding. Of course, we should also not overlook the growing tension between many Englishmen and the papacy. It had had been building for quite some time; it found expression long before Henry’s reign in Lollardy. The complaint of many of the English reformers was that Henry didn’t push things nearly far enough. Many of them would have preferred a Church of England reformed on the German or Genevan model. Henry’s policies were generally conservative.

Agreed, as to Henry.

And as to the issues between the realm and Rome, one can find it raising its head at least as far back as the first Statue of Westminister.

GKC

GKC

 

[Spengler47]

I’m not familiar with the first Statue of Westminster, but I the Prostestant Reformation was a long time in the making.

What about the original question? When Jesus said, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church,” was he designating Peter as the first bishop of the church, as the first pope, or simply as an example of Christian faith? Many years ago, I heard the Roman Catholic bishop, Fulton J. Sheen, argue on one of this TV programs that when Jesus referred to building the church upon a rock, he was referring to himself. “Thou art Peter, the rock, but on THIS rock (referring to himself), I will build my church.” The primacy of the bishop of Rome goes a long way back in church history, but can we say for sure that the papacy itself was instituted by Christ?

 

[GKC]

I’m not familiar with the first Statue of Westminster, but I the Prostestant Reformation was a long time in the making.

What about the original question? When Jesus said, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church,” was he designating Peter as the first bishop of the church, as the first pope, or simply as an example of Christian faith? Many years ago, I heard the Roman Catholic bishop, Fulton J. Sheen, argue on one of this TV programs that when Jesus referred to building the church upon a rock, he was referring to himself. “Thou art Peter, the rock, but on THIS rock (referring to himself), I will build my church.” The primacy of the bishop of Rome goes a long way back in church history, but can we say for sure that the papacy itself was instituted by Christ?

Westminster was one of the first statutes restricting the independence of the ecclesiastical courts, in 1275. It is a convenient starting point (though there were other earlier dust-ups, sure) in the battle to restrict the authority of any agency, outside the realm, over the Church in England, and to increase the authority of the Crown, over the same. It runs up at least through the double Statutes of *Praemunire *and of Provisors, before the final break, in Henry’s time.

As to your final question, I’m a moderate. Primus inter pares.

GKC

 

[Spengler47]

I don’t recall which of the early councils established the see of Rome as having precedence over the sees of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, but the principle of primus inter pares would, I believe, go back at least to the fourth century.

 

[querying]

**The Anglican faith is founded on Revelation and Tradition, whilst that of the Roman Church is, for a great part, built on medieval accretions. Traditional Anglicanism, is of the Body of Christ, its genesis was in the upper Room in Jerusalem and it had spread to Britain by a very early date indeed and claims were made by the Britons themselves [Albanacus] within a few years of the Crucifiction! 37 AD.To describe Anglicanism as a ,‘denomination,’ is at least an error. Anglicanism as it has been held by the faithfull, the traditionalists,is no more or less than a manifestation, an outshowing, of the Body of Christ! Anglicans hold the Apostolic faith and orders as ,‘Revealed by Christ to the saints’. That without addition or diminution. Following Trent and Vatican 1, can this be said of Rome?

You give no proofs of your statement,‘Catholics are those who are in unity with Rome,’ where is this in scripture or tradition? Catholicity is held or followed, by those who follow the teachings of the Apostles and Fathers of the First Centuries, you will need to justify your claims from that source only, not medievalism!
**

This has to be the most comical post I’ve ever read on CA. If it was actually true, I’d actually be quite scared.

**[sarcasm]**Anglicans sure are the Church Jesus founded, what with their impartiality on homosexuality, abortion, divorce, contraception and not having official and binding doctrine that their believers must assent to [/sarcasm]

But hey, I can relax, considering as all things Anglican will soon slide into oblivion.

 

[BHTech]

**The Anglican faith is founded on Revelation and Tradition, whilst that of the Roman Church is, for a great part, built on medieval accretions. Traditional Anglicanism, is of the Body of Christ, its genesis was in the upper Room in Jerusalem and it had spread to Britain by a very early date indeed and claims were made by the Britons themselves [Albanacus] within a few years of the Crucifiction! 37 AD.To describe Anglicanism as a ,‘denomination,’ is at least an error. Anglicanism as it has been held by the faithfull, the traditionalists,is no more or less than a manifestation, an outshowing, of the Body of Christ! Anglicans hold the Apostolic faith and orders as ,‘Revealed by Christ to the saints’. That without addition or diminution. Following Trent and Vatican 1, can this be said of Rome?

You give no proofs of your statement,‘Catholics are those who are in unity with Rome,’ where is this in scripture or tradition? Catholicity is held or followed, by those who follow the teachings of the Apostles and Fathers of the First Centuries, you will need to justify your claims from that source only, not medievalism!
**

Hi Folks

I hope I am not too late to contribute to this thread, but I will try. First I am a former Anglican and I am now Catholic after reading the church fathers and studying a bit about my former church.

I must beg to differ with your assertion that “The Anglican faith is founded on Revelation and Tradition, whilst that of the Roman Church is, for a great part, built on medieval accretions”.

First, on previous blogs that argument has been batted around but there is no proof that Jesus Christ founded an Anglican Church in addition to a Catholic church. Find for me an Anglican medival church or its ruins from the 4th century after Christianity became legal? There is none. Yes St. Augustine of Canterbury was sent by the Pope (Sylvester) to reign in Christians in England in the 5th century but that is it. That church was firmly established as Catholic up until King Henry VIII pants began to itch him. Anglicans and I have great respect for my former religion and friends are simply good will Catholics who were forced to separate from the bark of Peter into a state church not run by God but by a king or queen. A church that would like to claim historicity with the Catholic church, but cannot now do so because of Leo’s papal bull nullifying their orders and their doctrinal errors throughout the few centuries of its history. The third branch theory is utterly false.

Incidentally Anglicans (those that believe in Hooker) rely on Scripture, tradition (small t) and reason. Not Scripture and Tradition alone.

Anglicans do not hold to the faith once delivered to the Saints otherwise they would have remained Catholic. There would be no 39 articles or no book of common prayer that so many Anglicans do not believe in to this day. All of which occurred after 1535 and I challenge any Anglican to produce an “Anglican Catechism” pre 1535. The church fathers do not speak of an Anglican church and as a former Anglican I can tell you that their beliefs are all over the place. Please do not confuse this with those Catholics who do not know what their own church teaches or even practice the faith. I am referring specifically to comparisons in what the Anglican church or the Catholic church teaches and believes as a whole.

God Bless

Bhtech

 

[7_Sorrows]

Westminster was one of the first statutes restricting the independence of the ecclesiastical courts, in 1275. It is a convenient starting point (though there were other earlier dust-ups, sure) in the battle to restrict the authority of any agency, outside the realm, over the Church in England, and to increase the authority of the Crown, over the same. It runs up at least through the double Statutes of *Praemunire *and of Provisors, before the final break, in Henry’s time.

As to your final question, I’m a moderate. Primus inter pares.

GKC

i have to admit, GKC, i have been reading your posts for a little over a year now and it never ceases to amaze me how knowledgable you are about anglican history and english history in general.

 

[Spengler47]

This latest contribution is very disappointing every bit as bad as the piece the writer is responding to. It should be possible for one to convert from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism without feeling the need to engage in such a diatribe.

The split between England and Rome was a complex event. It cannot be ascribed simply to Henry VIII’s matrimonial problems. As for the role of the British monarchy in the Anglican Church, one could make similar observations about the role played by French, Portugese, Spanish and Austrian monarchs, and many German and Italian princes, in the Roman Church. The alliance between throne and altar was not an edifying spectacle in early modern Europe, in either Catholic or Protestant countries.

It’s an oversimplication to argue that Anglicans believe anything and everything. There are some postmodern Episcopalians who seem to have wandered very far from doctrinal orthodoxy, and some of them hold high positions in the church. It is my experience, however, that most Episcoplians are still firmly Christian in belief and practice.

 

[GKC]

i have to admit, GKC, i have been reading your posts for a little over a year now and it never ceases to amaze me how knowledgable you are about anglican history and english history in general.

You are very kind.

Books are my hobby, and have been for 50 years. I sort of drifted into learning bits and pieces of English history, Horny Hank and his Hormones, especially. about 12 years ago, or so. It’s not my favorite area, but then my favorite areas rarely come up on boards like these. Chesterton, sometimes.

Thank you.

GKC

 

[BHTech]

This latest contribution is very disappointing every bit as bad as the piece the writer is responding to. It should be possible for one to convert from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism without feeling the need to engage in such a diatribe.

The split between England and Rome was a complex event. It cannot be ascribed simply to Henry VIII’s matrimonial problems. As for the role of the British monarchy in the Anglican Church, one could make similar observations about the role played by French, Portugese, Spanish and Austrian monarchs, and many German and Italian princes, in the Roman Church. The alliance between throne and altar was not an edifying spectacle in early modern Europe, in either Catholic or Protestant countries.

It’s an oversimplication to argue that Anglicans believe anything and everything. There are some postmodern Episcopalians who seem to have wandered very far from doctrinal orthodoxy, and some of them hold high positions in the church. It is my experience, however, that most Episcoplians are still firmly Christian in belief and practice.

It is not diatribe to say that what the previous poster said is incorrect. Of course one can convert from Anglicanism to Catholicism and easily do it, because of a common heritage. I did it easily through the grace of God. I was merely responding to a comment made by another poster and making a case why his or her statement was incorrect. Too many Anglicans like to conveniently forget their history while bashing Rome. In my case I simply did not know history before my conversion, but I sincerely believe that if one examines Anglican history with an open mind, and prays about it, one can be lead to Rome easily. I take no issue with you there.

I also disagree that the split between Rome and Henry VIII is complex. We tend to make it complex, but just so our sinful actions have consequences, so too Henry VIII actions had dire consequences. Henry VIII knew he was wrong with his matrimonial sins and he let himself be influenced by the reformers after writing his magnificent piece of work, “Defense of the Faith”. In many respects the Anglican church worldwide is paying for the sins of its founder to this day. Just as Henry VIII sought a divorce to marry another, the Anglican church is today divorcing itself from the truth by accepting false doctrines.

Regarding your comment about Rome being influenced by the European monarchs during its history I will not sit here and defend it, for it is true. What I will say however, is that its doctrines were not influenced throughout its history by those external forces, even though there were lavish Popes, and bad Popes etc. The same cannot be said for the Anglican church and let me reiterate that I have the greatest of respect for my brothers and sisters in the Anglican faith. I owe my beliefs to the Anglican church, but I am simply stating a fact.

God Bless

Bhtech

 

[GKC]

This latest contribution is very disappointing every bit as bad as the piece the writer is responding to. It should be possible for one to convert from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism without feeling the need to engage in such a diatribe.

The split between England and Rome was a complex event. It cannot be ascribed simply to Henry VIII’s matrimonial problems. As for the role of the British monarchy in the Anglican Church, one could make similar observations about the role played by French, Portugese, Spanish and Austrian monarchs, and many German and Italian princes, in the Roman Church. The alliance between throne and altar was not an edifying spectacle in early modern Europe, in either Catholic or Protestant countries.

It’s an oversimplication to argue that Anglicans believe anything and everything. There are some postmodern Episcopalians who seem to have wandered very far from doctrinal orthodoxy, and some of them hold high positions in the church. It is my experience, however, that most Episcoplians are still firmly Christian in belief and practice.

In fact, everything in history was complex.

GKC

 

[luckyfredsdad]

do Anglicans agree with Catholics in their interpret of Matt 16:18?

God bless

First of all it is as well to remember that Peter had declared his and the Apostles belief that our Lord was the Son of God.
In this quote from Matthew 16, Christ said" Blessed art thou ,Simon Bar Jonah," for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven and I say unto thee that thou art Peter [Petros] and upon this rock ,[petra], will I build my Church; and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

Amongst most Romans, this quote is one of the most used to justify papal claims!
The quote then goes on,“I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shalt be loosed in heaven.”
Later on the Lord gave these same powers of loosing and binding to all the apostles.The promise of the Keys was fulfilled when S.Peter opened the doors of the Church to the multitude at Pentecost and when he admitted the Centurion ,Cornelius!

That leaves us ,in my opinion, with the question of what is meant by the Rock?Most Anglicans ,traditional ones that is, consider the ,‘rock,’ to be Peter’s Faith! Whilst Romans consider the rock, to be Peter himself!

Some ancient writers, S.Augstine for instance consider the rock to be Christ himself! A possibility I would not my self dispute! But if we follow the teachings of the Council of Trent, a foundation block of the Roman Church, we are told to follow Scripture and Tradition and at one time the Creed of Pius 1Vth, which was obligatory on all Roman ecclesiastics and all who promise and swear obedience to Rome, says clearly,"nor will I ever understand or interpret it, [Holy Scripture,] except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers, ". This is something all Anglicans can agree with their Roman bretheren.

Yet, when we look at this question through the comments of the Father, the majority do not believe the Rock to be Peter.

Maldonatus, S.J. a Roman Catholic Scholar says quite clearly ‘There are some amongst ancient authors who interpret ,‘on this rock,’ that is,‘on this faith,’ or, on this confession of faith in which thou hast called Me the Son of the living God’, as Hilary and Gregory Nyssen and Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria." Origen says,'On this rock, that is to say, on all men who have the same faith.

In the 16th, Century also the Roman Catholic scholar Launoy, found there are 17 Fathers in favour of the Rock being Peter.
44 for it meaning the faith Peter confessed.
Sixteen for it being Christ Himself.

When Anglican traditionalists follow the teachings of S.Vincent of Lerins we find the Rock is the Christian/ Catholic faith of Peter or of Christ Himself and this by standards that at one time even Rome professed.!

 

[Spengler47]

To reply to the two previous postings. Yes, as GKC writes, everything in history is complex.

The posting Bhtech was responding too was indeed intemperate and badly reasoned. Anglicanism as a distinct denomination didn’t begin in the upper room in Jerusalem, nor is Roman Catholicism simply “medieval accretions.” I’m oversimplifying a bit here, but one could argue that there was one, universal Christian Church until the great schism of 1054 when the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches split. The Protestant Reformation that began in 1517 was another split, or series of splits, this time within the western church. But, just as you cannot take the Anglican Church and read it back into the upper room, neither can you take the Roman Catholic Church of the high middle ages or the Counter Reformation and read it back into the upper room, either.

 

[GKC]

It is not diatribe to say that what the previous poster said is incorrect. Of course one can convert from Anglicanism to Catholicism and easily do it, because of a common heritage. I did it easily through the grace of God. I was merely responding to a comment made by another poster and making a case why his or her statement was incorrect. Too many Anglicans like to conveniently forget their history while bashing Rome. In my case I simply did not know history before my conversion, but I sincerely believe that if one examines Anglican history with an open mind, and prays about it, one can be lead to Rome easily. I take no issue with you there.

I also disagree that the split between Rome and Henry VIII is complex. We tend to make it complex, but just so our sinful actions have consequences, so too Henry VIII actions had dire consequences. Henry VIII knew he was wrong with his matrimonial sins and he let himself be influenced by the reformers after writing his magnificent piece of work, “Defense of the Faith”. In many respects the Anglican church worldwide is paying for the sins of its founder to this day. Just as Henry VIII sought a divorce to marry another, the Anglican church is today divorcing itself from the truth by accepting false doctrines.

Regarding your comment about Rome being influenced by the European monarchs during its history I will not sit here and defend it, for it is true. What I will say however, is that its doctrines were not influenced throughout its history by those external forces, even though there were lavish Popes, and bad Popes etc. The same cannot be said for the Anglican church and let me reiterate that I have the greatest of respect for my brothers and sisters in the Anglican faith. I owe my beliefs to the Anglican church, but I am simply stating a fact.

God Bless

Bhtech

As I mentioned somewhere, Henry and his Great Matter is another of my hobby areas. It was quite complex. If this develops into any sort of a thread, I’ll rehearse again, what I’ve rehearsed here before, the tale of impediments/dispensations/decrees of nullity, and politics, as it all was done, in Henry’s day. In brief, what he sought, a decree of nullity with regard to his marriage to Catherine, was commonplace in that time. Happened every day. As with his sister, for example. And Henry had a fair case, certainly as strong as was usual, in his causa, for a case that Julius’s original dispensation was ultra vires, prevented by the strict application of the Levetical prohibition. And he had an even stronger case, which he ignored, of an undispensed diriment impediment of the justice of public honesty, in the same dispensation. Details are available.

But since the system was as much politically based as it was theologically based, to permit the making and breaking of dynastic marriages while allowing the Church to maintain control of the sacrament of marriage as a sacrament, Henry had no real gripe when he ran smack into a bigger political stick than himself: Charles. But then, Henry was in the position to make a political response himself. And did so.

It’s all complicated; history always is. As, for instance, is the full story of exactly how and why Henry received the Defensor Fidei title. It involves more than just the *Assertio Septem Sacramentorum. *Can post it, if desired.

Complicated. That’s history.

GKC