Do Anglicans believe that Christ founded the Church on Peter?

[GKC]

you are very good at retaining what you read! i love books as well - reading for just the pleasure of it and reading to learn about a particular subject. i never considered myself much a fan of medieval times, but i have come to appreciate that age now after reading some books on history and i love a good medieval mystery - especially one set in England. anyhow, i always learn something new when i am on a thread that you post on whether it is something about the anglican church or king henry viii. so i appreciate the knowledge you share with us here at CAF.

Again, you are kind to say so.

My memory of what I read is not all that good. That’s why I always buy and keep the books in the areas I am interested in. I need to refer to them a lot. Results in a library in the 20,000 volume range. Which is fun, but brings its own problems. As an aside, the best single book to read on Henry is J. J. Scarisbrick’s bio, HENRY VIII. Scarisbrick is RC.

My wife is a big historical mystery collector (I’m lucky to be married to a fellow book collector).

And I appreciate your words, very much.

GKC

 

[RevDrNorth]

Again, you are kind to say so.

My memory of what I read is not all that good. That’s why I always buy and keep the books in the areas I am interested in. I need to refer to them a lot. Results in a library in the 20,000 volume range. Which is fun, but brings its own problems. As an aside, the best single book to read on Henry is J. J. Scarisbrick’s bio, HENRY VIII. Scarisbrick is RC.

My wife is a big historical mystery collector (I’m lucky to be married to a fellow book collector).

And I appreciate your words, very much.

GKC

Yes but the problem with having two book collectors (as well I know) is running out of shelf space. Winston Churchill (C of E) once said something about his own large book collection and the sheer joy of holding a book in one’s hand (don’t recall the specific quote).

 

[7_Sorrows]

Again, you are kind to say so.

My memory of what I read is not all that good. That’s why I always buy and keep the books in the areas I am interested in. I need to refer to them a lot. Results in a library in the 20,000 volume range. Which is fun, but brings its own problems. As an aside, the best single book to read on Henry is J. J. Scarisbrick’s bio, HENRY VIII. Scarisbrick is RC.

My wife is a big historical mystery collector (I’m lucky to be married to a fellow book collector).

And I appreciate your words, very much.

GKC

as a girl growing up, i always dreamed one day of owning one of those old houses that had a separate library with shelves that ran from the floor to the ceiling and having every shelf full of my favorite books.
unfortunately, i have had to part with a lot of books over the years, but i don’t even think i was close to 20,000 volumes.

i think i have seen that book on Henry VIII at the local bookstore or i saw it at the library and i was trying to remember who the author was that you had recommended, so i will have to write it down this time. thanks.

 

[GKC]

as a girl growing up, i always dreamed one day of owning one of those old houses that had a separate library with shelves that ran from the floor to the ceiling and having every shelf full of my favorite books.
unfortunately, i have had to part with a lot of books over the years, but i don’t even think i was close to 20,000 volumes.

i think i have seen that book on Henry VIII at the local bookstore or i saw it at the library and i was trying to remember who the author was that you had recommended, so i will have to write it down this time. thanks.

You are welcome; I hope you find it. It is excellent on what was going on, in the decree of nullity affair.

My own plans, once I retired fully about 2 years ago, was to add an addition to the family place, that would expand the small library by roughly 1000 sq. feet, wall to wall, ceiling to floor bookshelves ( and a couple of windows). I thought I’d have it done by now. But then came the economic situation.

Maybe I’ll start it next year.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Yes but the problem with having two book collectors (as well I know) is running out of shelf space. Winston Churchill (C of E) once said something about his own large book collection and the sheer joy of holding a book in one’s hand (don’t recall the specific quote).

It is impossible to have too many books; just too few bookshelves, indeed. Some day I will fix that. Meanwhile, I’m storing books in the attic, storage shed, garage, rented storage space and every room in the house, anticipating building the library. Trip over them daily.

And there is definitely a tactile sensation in the touch, feel and smell of books that is quite sensuous. In old book stores, I even like the feel of the dust on the top edges.
It’s hopeless.

GKC

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Please explain to me, then, how the king or queen can be considered “the head of the Church in England”. What exactly does this mean then?

**The head of the Church in England?
Henry was considered to be head because of the fact of being Chief Magistrate within England. The Church was not and never should be to my mind free from law. Either English Law,nor Mosaic Law.

There was nothing wrong in this stance at the time, it is what was expected, after all
the Roman Emperors of both East and West had been Head of the Church throughout the Roman Empire. At the time of Henry 8th, the Pope was Head of State throughout a large part of Northern Italy, was he not as the landlord of vast lands, head of state and Head of the Church?

Cardinal Pole in his book,Liber Concilia, tells us that,’ Everyman is in some sense a Vicar of Christ. The Emperor is the same in a special sense, He is the Regal Head of the Church As the Pontiff is the sacerdotal Head. Both are Vicars of Christ, who is both Priest and King. The Emperor is indeed , like Christ , king of kings. In a General Council he has those parts exactly which Christ, as their Lord,Master and King discharged to wards His Apostles.

This was from the European champion of the Papacy, the Cardinal Legate, and candidate for the Papacy. What would we say of Henry if he had called in all his privileges? He had a line drawn in the sand by the English Convocation when they told him, Supreme Head of the Church,’ as far as the law of Christ allows.’ That was in 1531. Two years later another was passed without any opposition but Henry had got the idea!**
[Canon Dixon’s History of the Church of England . Vol 2.pge 369/70. 1888]

 

[thomasjones3]

I think I can answer so that both Anglicans and RC can understand.

Both the Lutheran and Anglican Churches are split roughly between to similar groups, the protestants and the sacramentarians. Some call it high church and low church. Sometimes in the RC churches there is a high church and low church.

So, depending on which Anglican and Lutheran you speak to, some will renounce Peter and the Pope and some will completely abide and believe in Peter and the role of God’s representative , the Pope, on earth.

Apparently the Calvinist both in Britain and Europe had an effect on some parishes. In England it was Henry and then the Presbyterians. The Calvinist in Europe pushed their way into a settled Augsburg peace and understanding. Both the Lutherans and the RC lost.

So, in America you will find Anglo-Catholic parishes as strictly bound to the Catholic catechism and the canon law as any RC parish. You will find high church Lutherans bound to the teachings of Rome, though antiquated, as many parishes in Europe.

But, the parishioners who come out of quite a few Episcopal parishes or Lutheran Churches of America will believe and behave as the Presbyterians down the street.

The high churches, the sacramental churches, are being marginalized. A great inner struggle is taking place in both America and in Europe. The individual parishes are finding it harder and harder. Many more will be lost and the RC church is the only refuge so far.

 

[Spengler47]

I would agree that in American Anglicanism (the Episcopal Church), traditional, high church, Anglo Catholics have been marginalized in recent years. So have traditional, low church evangelicals. It’s the postmodern, theologically liberal social activists who are currently in the ascendency. It’s difficult to say whether that trend can or will be reversed. But I suspect that today’s emphasis on liberal theology and social action is generational and reflects the concerns of people who came of age in the nineteen sixties. Since they also exercise disproportionate influence in our colleges, universities and seminaries, their influence may persist for some time. On the other hand, we may hope for some change as the current generation of clergy, educators and lay leaders, retire. Who knows? Young Episcopalians may tire of the postmodern consensus and rediscover C.S. Lewis, T.S. Eliot, W.H. Auden and other traditionalist Anglicans.

As for the Roman Catholic Church, the trends that have been so powerful in Anglicanism have been held at bay by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. But I believe there are a lot of Catholics who would gladly embrace the postmodernism that is so prevalent in contemporary Anglicanism and Protestantism. In my home town, example, the local Roman Catholic seminary is a hot bed of all the postmodern, secularizing trends the Vatican opposes.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I would agree that in American Anglicanism (the Episcopal Church), traditional, high church, Anglo Catholics have been marginalized in recent years. So have traditional, low church evangelicals. It’s the postmodern, theologically liberal social activists who are currently in the ascendency. It’s difficult to say whether that trend can or will be reversed. But I suspect that today’s emphasis on liberal theology and social action is generational and reflects the concerns of people who came of age in the nineteen sixties. Since they also exercise disproportionate influence in our colleges, universities and seminaries, their influence may persist for some time. On the other hand, we may hope for some change as the current generation of clergy, educators and lay leaders, retire. Who knows? Young Episcopalians may tire of the postmodern consensus and rediscover C.S. Lewis, T.S. Eliot, W.H. Auden and other traditionalist Anglicans.

As for the Roman Catholic Church, the trends that have been so powerful in Anglicanism have been held at bay by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. But I believe there are a lot of Catholics who would gladly embrace the postmodernism that is so prevalent in contemporary Anglicanism and Protestantism. In my home town, example, the local Roman Catholic seminary is a hot bed of all the postmodern, secularizing trends the Vatican opposes.

Hey Spengler,

You seem like a pretty conservative guy who is opposed to this morally relativistic post modern tripe that so many are shoveling at us in churches; my question is this, and I ask this gently and respectfully, why are you in the Episcopal Church if this sort of thing bugs you? TEC is the headquarters of Christian three-ring circus heretical insanity?

 

[VARC]

The more study I do of Anglicanism the more I see that my thread title is problematic. So to narrow it down a bit and to avoid the inevitable reminder that Anglicanism is broad in its beliefs, lets just focus on Anglo-Catholics.

Chesterton wrote the following in his Heretics.

Though not named specifically, Chesterton is of course referring to Peter as the, “shuffler, snob and coward” which Christ built His Church upon. Chesterton wrote this while he still considered himself an Anglican (not converting to the Catholic Church for another 17 years) which led me to wonder, do Anglicans agree with Catholics in their interpret of Matt 16:18? Or was Chesterton wrong (in the sense of Anglican beliefs go) with his interpretation?

God bless

I don’t consider myself an Anglo-catholic and I don’t believe that Jesus built the church on the foundation of Peter. Matthew is the only evangelist to record this quote of Jesus. The rest of the new testament is pretty silent on the church being built on Peter. Reason would dictate that this statement be interpreted in light of the other Gospels and the letters of St. Paul that often refer to Jesus as the rock that the church is built on. This isn’t to say that Peter wasn’t the leader of the twelve after the ascension. I think it is pretty obvious that he was. But I think it is streching it to refer to him as the foundation of the church.

P.S. I am not trying to start a debate on the interpretation of this passage. I understand that this is a very pivotal passage upon which the Roman Catholic religion is based. I was just giving my opinion as an Anglican (not Anglo-catholic, though. More of a broad churchmen)

P.P.S. Interestingly enough, Bishop John Shelby Spong, the bane of all conservatives, accepted the interpreation that Peter was the rock.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t consider myself an Anglo-catholic and I don’t believe that Jesus built the church on the foundation of Peter. Matthew is the only evangelist to record this quote of Jesus. The rest of the new testament is pretty silent on the church being built on Peter. Reason would dictate that this statement be interpreted in light of the other Gospels and the letters of St. Paul that often refer to Jesus as the rock that the church is built on. This isn’t to say that Peter wasn’t the leader of the twelve after the ascension. I think it is pretty obvious that he was. But I think it is streching it to refer to him as the foundation of the church.

P.S. I am not trying to start a debate on the interpretation of this passage. I understand that this is a very pivotal passage upon which the Roman Catholic religion is based. I was just giving my opinion as an Anglican (not Anglo-catholic, though. More of a broad churchmen)

P.P.S. Interestingly enough, Bishop John Shelby Spong, the bane of all conservatives, accepted the interpreation that Peter was the rock.

The only point I would make is that John is the only gospel in which Christ calls Himself the “Bread of Life” and gives us the admonition to eat his flesh and drink his blood in that bread of life discourse. And yet it is no less legit and sacred and important. Just because Matthew is the only gospel to mention this takes nothing away from its significance. The rest of the scriptures are also very much pointing toward Peter’s leadership role and his importance.

And as far as Spong is concerned, the only thing I share with that psychopath is gravity and we’re both homo sapiens, and in his case, just barely!

 

[VARC]

The only point I would make is that John is the only gospel in which Christ calls Himself the “Bread of Life” and gives us the admonition to eat his flesh and drink his blood in that bread of life discourse. And yet it is no less legit and sacred and important. Just because Matthew is the only gospel to mention this takes nothing away from its significance. The rest of the scriptures are also very much pointing toward Peter’s leadership role and his importance.

That’s not really a good comparison. All the synoptic gospels relate the quote of Jesus at the last supper of “This is my body”. Interpreting that in light of John’s elaborate explanation in the bread of life discourse (not to mention Paul’s letter to the corinthians) is more than reasonable. But where else in the new testament is it even remotely hinted that Peter is the foundation of the church? That’s a pretty important piece of information, wouldn’t you say? But none of the other evangelists make such a strong statement about Peter. The idea is completely absent from Paul’s letters (which are the most ancient writings of the new testament). Such an important teaching ought to be as clear and wide spread as the resurrection of Christ but it isn’t. Indeed, you don’t hear much about the Petrine foundation of the church until centuries after Christ and even then it is the minority view.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

That’s not really a good comparison. All the synoptic gospels relate the quote of Jesus at the last supper of “This is my body”. Interpreting that in light of John’s elaborate explanation in the bread of life discourse (not to mention Paul’s letter to the corinthians) is more than reasonable. But where else in the new testament is it even remotely hinted that Peter is the foundation of the church? That’s a pretty important piece of information, wouldn’t you say? But none of the other evangelists make such a strong statement about Peter. The idea is completely absent from Paul’s letters (which are the most ancient writings of the new testament). Such an important teaching ought to be as clear and wide spread as the resurrection of Christ but it isn’t. Indeed, you don’t hear much about the Petrine foundation of the church until centuries after Christ and even then it is the minority view.

Where in the Scriptures does it say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal and one yet separate persons? Nowhere. Yet we hopefully agree to that point. I look at this holistically, not through Sola Scriptura. Trust me, VARC, I’ve struggled with this issue. Friend, TRUST ME, I’ve struggled with papal infallibility, you know that! I’ve agonized about it and tried to argue through the point on CAF and other places, trying to make sense of what I believe about this. I’ve analyzed it to death and pondered it like a crazy man…

Matthew 16 is compelling to me in that Peter alone was chosen in that context, name is changed, and the imagery of the keys harkens to other Biblical instances of the keys being handed over and authority granted over a kingdom. This imagery and this language has significance in the ancient world that goes beyond what you or I might think of it today. Peter’s leadership role is ongoing in the NT and in the early church we might find varying opinions on Peter’s role and primacy or lack thereof but there are far more saints and fathers who indicate Peter’s chair to be the nucleus of the visible earthly church than who believed the confession was the heart rather than the man himself.

We never hear of the Blessed Virgin after the Gospels at all except some imagery of her in Revelation. And yet we know that the BVM is the theotokos and the Mother of God, a crucial component of Christianity, revered and adored by Catholics. I don’t need repeat references to her in the later NT to be convinced of her significance.

I fail to believe that the successors of Peter all of a sudden, out of nowhere, got the bright idea that Peter was the supreme leader of the Church and the Petrine foundation of the Church was a developed novelty. The leadership exercised by Rome is too strong too early on for me to buy that. Already with the Cyprian situation versus Stephen we see Stephen’s decisions as binding and Rome being that final authority on dogma and theological issues. I’m not one of those cut-and-pasters, as you know VARC, so I’m not going to quote the gazillion quotes from all these early fathers, saints, and great men of the Church who believed in the primacy of the pope and his superiority of origin as a bishop through Matthew 16. We’ve seen all these quotes and they are compelling.

 

[VARC]

Where in the Scriptures does it say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal and one yet separate persons? Nowhere. Yet we hopefully agree to that point. …

I don’t think that is a very good comparison either. The idea of the Trinity may not be explicitly stated in the Bible but it is alluded to in diverse parts of scrpture including John Matthew, Luke and the Acts. This contrasts with the Petrine foundation that hangs on a specific interpretation of a single passage in a single book.

Also there is a mountain of support from early tradition (2nd century) about the Trinity. Petrine foundation is disputed by the ECF and that is 100s of years after Christ.

I fail to believe that the successors of Peter all of a sudden, out of nowhere, got the bright idea that Peter was the supreme leader of the Church and the Petrine foundation of the Church was a developed novelty.

I don’t think it is all that unbelievable. Politics always played a big role in eccleastical power.

The leadership exercised by Rome is too strong too early on for me to buy that. Already with the Cyprian situation versus Stephen we see Stephen’s decisions as binding and Rome being that final authority on dogma and theological issues.

I actually think that the fact that Cyprian flat out stood up to the bishop of Rome
and charged him with heresy is an argument against papal supremacy. Apparently, the idea that he was bound to listen to Rome was lost on him. Just imagine if a catholic bishop did that today. He would be cast out of the comunnion. Times have definitely changed.

 

[Spengler47]

GurneyHalleck1 asks why, despite my aversion to postmodernism, moral relativism, secularism, etc., and my being a pretty conservative person, I remain in the Episcopal Church, rather than becoming a Roman Catholic. That’s a good question. There have been times when I’ve contemplated leaving the Episcopal Church and joining one of the breakway Anglican churches, the Greek Orthodox or the Roman Catholic Church. So why am I still an Episcopalian?

For one thing, I agree with the Anglican tradition that Christian belief is grounded in scripture, tradition and reason and that personal judgement is important. Even though I view the rise of the papacy as a logical development in the history of the Christian Church, and have a very high regard for the current pontiff, Benedict XVI, it seems to me that the Roman system is very “top down” and allows little room for personal questioning of decisions made by the hierarchy. I simply can’t agree with the doctrine of papal infallibility.

Second, I view postmodernism, moral relativity, and secularism as part of the mental climate of the 1960’s. Even though I often disagree with the people who subscribe to those beliefs and values, I recognize that they are reacting to what they consider the deficiencies of previous beliefs and social arrangements. I think they are often wrong, but not all the time or on every issue. I opposed prayer book revision, but I view the ordination of women as priests as a long overdue reform. However, the postmodern, morally relativistic, secular way of looking at life represents one point in time. I believe it will change. Just as the people of the decade of the sixties reacted to what they saw as the deficiencies of the nineteen forties and fifties, a future generation will grow tired of the ideology of the sixties and seek a return to a more traditional faith.

I suppose, finally, it has a lot to do with my baptismal vows. I vowed (or my sponsors vowed in my name,and I later confirmed those vows) that I would “fight under Christ’s banner against the world, the flesh and devil and continue a faithful soldier and servant of Christ unto my life’s end.” In the larger army of the universal church militant, I was enrolled in a particular regiment, the Episcopal Church and that’s where my duty lies. Some of the officers may be barmy, but you don’t drop the regimental colors!

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Where in the Scriptures does it say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal and one yet separate persons? Nowhere. Yet we hopefully agree to that point. I look at this holistically, not through Sola Scriptura. Trust me, VARC, I’ve struggled with this issue. Friend, TRUST ME, I’ve struggled with papal infallibility, you know that! I’ve agonized about it and tried to argue through the point on CAF and other places, trying to make sense of what I believe about this. I’ve analyzed it to death and pondered it like a crazy man…

Matthew 16 is compelling to me in that Peter alone was chosen in that context, name is changed, and the imagery of the keys harkens to other Biblical instances of the keys being handed over and authority granted over a kingdom. This imagery and this language has significance in the ancient world that goes beyond what you or I might think of it today. Peter’s leadership role is ongoing in the NT and in the early church we might find varying opinions on Peter’s role and primacy or lack thereof but there are far more saints and fathers who indicate Peter’s chair to be the nucleus of the visible earthly church than who believed the confession was the heart rather than the man himself.

I fail to believe that the successors of Peter all of a sudden, out of nowhere, got the bright idea that Peter was the supreme leader of the Church and the Petrine foundation of the Church was a developed novelty. The leadership exercised by Rome is too strong too early on for me to buy that. Already with the Cyprian situation versus Stephen we see Stephen’s decisions as binding and Rome being that final authority on dogma and theological issues. I’m not one of those cut-and-pasters, as you know VARC, so I’m not going to quote the gazillion quotes from all these early fathers, saints, and great men of the Church who believed in the primacy of the pope and his superiority of origin as a bishop through Matthew 16.** We’ve seen all these quotes and they are compelling.**

****B]You are obviously most selective in your choice of quotes!
You use your own judgment in selecting those teachings of your Church which appeal to your own fancies. You eschew those teachings which contradict your fancy and do not agree with your whims!
I’m talking about the injunction of Trent where the Roman Church professed most clearly,
concerning scripture

“Nor will I ever understand it , except according to the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers.”

I can quite understand why the orthodox refer to Romanists as Protestants!
" ****

******If you do not like the quote from Trent, nor the quote given earlier concerning Matthew 16, from the Fathers and collected by Mansi, a Roman Scholar , how about these scriptural quotes below?

Matthew 13:13
13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing
see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand

Jeremiah 5:21
Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:

Isaiah 6:9-10
And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear you indeed, but understand not; and see indeed, but perceive not.
Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

---

 

[BHTech]

I don’t think that is a very good comparison either. The idea of the Trinity may not be explicitly stated in the Bible but it is alluded to in diverse parts of scrpture including John Matthew, Luke and the Acts. This contrasts with the Petrine foundation that hangs on a specific interpretation of a single passage in a single book.

I disagree with this statement and support GurneyHalleck1 assertion that Matthew 16 does provide the extensional support of the Petrine ministry. Without rehashing the old theological arguments, however, I would like to use a bit of reasoning here to address VARC’s point. Let us suppose that Catholics made up the Petrine ministry out of the blues, and it really did and does not exist then may I ask who should lead “the church catholic”? That is the Universal church? It is a given fact that every organization secular or religious needs a head or a leader, so should the ArchBishop of Canterbury lead the world universal church, or is your assertion that we can all find our way merrily through history and each denomination have his or her own leader?

Should Benny Hinn or Billy Graham or Spong lead the church universal? If you don’t think any of these men are good enough then would you be so kind and make a suggestion? Or do you as an Anglican believe that the church should have a flat hierarchy and no one should provide leadership? Do you honesty believe that Jesus would leave us floundering in Biblical ether to try and figure things out by ourselves?

Petrine foundation is disputed by the ECF and that is 100s of years after Christ.

This is patently false. Read Clement of Rome, Ignatius and many others. Just because a few may have disagreed in the course of history does not mean that is the view of the entire church. In a medium size company of 500 employees you can be guaranteed to find those who will disagree that X, Y or Z should be their bosses.

Blessings

BHtech

 

[Spengler47]

It seems to me that BHTech advances a very good argument, when he writes that the office of pope is essential to the right ordering of the church. It’s actually an argument which is consistent with the one advanced by the Anglican theologians of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries against their Puritan opponents. The Anglicans did not reject the idea that a Christian church could be organized along Presbyterian or congressional lines, but they felt that such a system could only work on a small scale, in Geneva or Holland. For the right governance of the church in a large country like England, the episcopacy was needed. Carrying that logical a little further, and thinking in terms of the universal church, if it is some day reunited, couldn’t one argue that a chief bishop is also needed? And by historical tradition, isn’t that chief bishop, logically, the Bishop of Rome?

 

[BHTech]

It seems to me that BHTech advances a very good argument, when he writes that the office of pope is essential to the right ordering of the church. It’s actually an argument which is consistent with the one advanced by the Anglican theologians of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries against their Puritan opponents. The Anglicans did not reject the idea that a Christian church could be organized along Presbyterian or congressional lines, but they felt that such a system could only work on a small scale, in Geneva or Holland. For the right governance of the church in a large country like England, the episcopacy was needed. Carrying that logical a little further, and thinking in terms of the universal church, if it is some day reunited, couldn’t one argue that a chief bishop is also needed? And by historical tradition, isn’t that chief bishop, logically, the Bishop of Rome?

As Jesus said to the scribe who answered him correctly in Mark 12:34, And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any question., so I say to you as one brother to the next, you are not far from the truth.

Blessings

BHtech

 

[Spengler47]

Thank you, brother. Perhaps the ulimate illumination will be granted us only in heaven. As blessed Saint Paul the Apostle wrote,

“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” (1 Corinthians: 13:11).

Or as Dante wrote in Paradiso, Canticle 33:

As the geometer who sets himself
To square the circle and who cannot find,
135 For all his thought, the principle he needs,

      Just so was I on seeing this new vision 
      I wanted to see how our image fuses 
      Into the circle and finds its place in it, 

      Yet my wings were not meant for such a flight —

140 Except that then my mind was struck by lightning
Through which my longing was at last fulfilled.

      Here powers failed my high imagination: 
      But by now my desire and will were turned, 
      Like a balanced wheel rotated evenly,

145 By the Love that moves the sun and the other stars.

Something for all of us, whether Roman Catholic or Anglican, to think about.