Not if Peter is not meant to be what the CC teaches. If that is true, than it is a great big case of spiritual hubris.
…and when I was growing up…women were ladies and in our classroom, the girls were always well behaved and orderly and the boys were always getting in trouble…
I find the polity of the Catholic Church less consistent with history than the Orthodox. If the Bishop of Rome is Peter, who are the other bishops in the Catholic Church? Why do they lack an individual descendent? I think the universal ecclesiology that the middle ages produced out of Rome is far different than the Eucharistic ecclesiology of the East, which seems far more ancient and consistent to be sure. It seems like the Catholic model just makes bishops vassals of the pope rather than equals, which they should be. It makes one wonder why Constantine and his successors called councils to decide heretical matters and what is orthodox truth?? If the pope, in his current incarnation, were the same in the pre-Schism church, I think Constantine would’ve just consulted with the Holy Father, the Pope would’ve ruled, Constantine would make it official, and they’d have called it a day, no Nicaea necessary! Anything specific so I can impress the family again this week and sound smarter than I really am?
Yeah, this was one of the kickers for me too. The Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 never squared with Ephesians 2:20 with me…"Founded on the Apostles and Prophets, with Christ as the chief cornerstone.I tend to agree with Bluegoat on this for sure. Catholics see the Pope as “Peter,” whereas Anglicans and especially Orthodox see all 12 apostles embodied in EACH bishop. Each Bishop/Patriarch/Metropolitan in Orthodoxy has Peter, Paul, Jude, Andrew, Matthias, James, John, and the rest within his charism, his heritage. The Episcopacy itself is a college that embodies the fullness of the Holy Spirit, not any one man. The Catholics believe it is a direct transfer for Peter. Each Bishop of Rome is Peter. It’s interesting how Antioch was also a Petrine See so that is also a Peter for the Orthodox!
The Anglicans are no different. They saw Henry VIII as an English Constantine. Many Anglicans said as much. They rejected the Petrine See = Rome notion and felt that each land had the right to be self-governing with Peter merely being in a primacy of honor as per Chalcedon’s canon. Catholics today say “but Henry was a cruel, perverted scoundrel!” and I suppose my response would be, “But what about Constantine?” Constantine was a brutal despot in so many ways and a bloodthirsty killer. He killed members of his own family, close members, in heinous ways. His initial conversion to Christendom was mostly for victory in battle “In hoc signo vinces!” He saw Christianity as a winner of battles and greatness for himself plus he liked the structure of the Church and its order. He found it convenient and a tool for his own advancement. How much of it he actually believed we’ll never know. But he was a vicious man, not a saint to be sure. Neither was Henry.
My family often has this discussion. We pretty much just shrug our shoulders and say,“They are brainwashed.”When I was 14 I had and aunt who married into the family. She was presbyterian and attempted to pull me and my sister away from Catholicism and into her religion. But one thing she could never answer for me is, How can one justify a religion that was brought about on King Henry VIII selfish desire to divorce his wife? I suppose if King Henry VIII was on a spiritual path it could have some credibility, but he only broke from the Catholic Church because they wouldn’t allow his divorce and so from that he adopted Protestantism as the new religion of England, and then altered the Bible. And so England adopting Protestantism and putting it upon it’s subjects, and England being a strong nation in Europe made Protestantism grow strong. But if King Henry VIII hadn’t wanted a divorce then Protestantism would have either faded or remained small in numbers. So, my question is how can one have such profound faith in a religion that had it’s origins in a selfish King who only used it as a tool to gain a legitimate male heir? I’m not trying to be mean, but it is true. I just want to know if anyone has an answer to this that would make me understand how some Protestants can be so very self-righteous in their religion given it’s dubious origins?I do want to understand but no as of yet has given me any solid explanation. So please…anyone?
Here is a big list from a website. They will think you are brilliant!
Most modern Protestants don’t consider the origins of the Reformation at all. And the Presbyterian Church wasn’t started by Henry VIII.When I was 14 I had and aunt who married into the family. She was presbyterian and attempted to pull me and my sister away from Catholicism and into her religion. But one thing she could never answer for me is, How can one justify a religion that was brought about on King Henry VIII selfish desire to divorce his wife? I suppose if King Henry VIII was on a spiritual path it could have some credibility, but he only broke from the Catholic Church because they wouldn’t allow his divorce and so from that he adopted Protestantism as the new religion of England, and then altered the Bible. And so England adopting Protestantism and putting it upon it’s subjects, and England being a strong nation in Europe made Protestantism grow strong. But if King Henry VIII hadn’t wanted a divorce then Protestantism would have either faded or remained small in numbers. So, my question is how can one have such profound faith in a religion that had it’s origins in a selfish King who only used it as a tool to gain a legitimate male heir? I’m not trying to be mean, but it is true. I just want to know if anyone has an answer to this that would make me understand how some Protestants can be so very self-righteous in their religion given it’s dubious origins?
resbyterianism) exist at all if not for the Reformation? If the answers is. “No, if not for the Reformation religion X would never have been,” then = Protestant.*Thank you GKC. I once saw a documentary which claimed that the reason for the split in SA was due to racism because the Anglican church wanted to include all and some of its members wanted to exclude black people. They broke away and called themselves the CoE. I attended 2 services in one of these churches to please a family member and the service was like a concert whereas in the Anglican church the service was remarkably similar to a Mass. *
But what would have happened after Henry’s death? We simply don’t know.Okay, here is the clear difference: All religions that have their origins in the Reformation, which includes the teachings of John Calvin are considered Protestant. Ask yourself would religions X (ex
On the other hand, how many of us Catholics wring our hands over the Borgia Popes, or the corruption that led to the Reformation? Or the Inquisition, or the Fourth Crusade?
************As to this, Catholics do not just wring their hands over these issues. These things are talked about, confronted, lamented over,and argued about from members, writers and leaders in the Catholic Church. The Vatican has even issued statements on the Inquisition and members of the Catholic Church had openly given their opinion criticism of such statement. Unlike Protestant religions that have adopted the Larger Catechism that makes it a sin to rebel and have contempt for superiors, no such rule exists in Catholicism. Very few Catholics will deny the corruption of the Catholic Church that angered people into the Reformation, or atrocities of the Inquisition and Fourth Crusade. Very few Catholics will side step, deny or attempt to re-write history on these matters. We know the faults of our own church and we do not deny it. So we do much then sit and wring our hands.
I wonder how many times people have that conversation about Catholics and come to the same conclusion? I wouldn’t feel such a generalisation or reductionist attitude of complex historical or theological issues was helpful in either case.
As to this, are you saying that people reduce the origins to Catholicism to…? The historical truth is that if King Henry the VIII had never wanted to divorce Queen Catherine and was content with Princess Mary, the Reformation never would have had political and financial backing to be propelled and give rise to the number of Protestant religions of today. That’s not reductionist, it’s a major point in the history of Western Civilization. If you can make the case that without the support of King Henry VIII and his break from Rome that the amount of Protestant members would be the same today then please be my guest.
Okay, here is the clear difference: All religions that have their origins in the Reformation, which includes the teachings of John Calvin are considered Protestant. Ask yourself would religions X (ex
On the other hand, how many of us Catholics wring our hands over the Borgia Popes, or the corruption that led to the Reformation? Or the Inquisition, or the Fourth Crusade?
************As to this, Catholics do not just wring their hands over these issues. These things are talked about, confronted, lamented over,and argued about from members, writers and leaders in the Catholic Church. The Vatican has even issued statements on the Inquisition and members of the Catholic Church had openly given their opinion criticism of such statement. Unlike Protestant religions that have adopted the Larger Catechism that makes it a sin to rebel and have contempt for superiors, no such rule exists in Catholicism. Very few Catholics will deny the corruption of the Catholic Church that angered people into the Reformation, or atrocities of the Inquisition and Fourth Crusade. Very few Catholics will side step, deny or attempt to re-write history on these matters. We know the faults of our own church and we do not deny it. So we do much then sit and wring our hands.
I wonder how many times people have that conversation about Catholics and come to the same conclusion? I wouldn’t feel such a generalisation or reductionist attitude of complex historical or theological issues was helpful in either case.
As to this, are you saying that people reduce the origins to Catholicism to…? The historical truth is that if King Henry the VIII had never wanted to divorce Queen Catherine and was content with Princess Mary, the Reformation never would have had political and financial backing to be propelled and give rise to the number of Protestant religions of today. That’s not reductionist, it’s a major point in the history of Western Civilization. If you can make the case that without the support of King Henry VIII and his break from Rome that the amount of Protestant members would be the same today then please be my guest.
Of course I’m aware of the history of the English colonizers (many of whom were not of Anglican origin, by the way) of North America.So what you are saying that had Henry VIII stayed Catholic and never broke from England then Protestantism would still be the widespread religion it is today?
—End Quote—
Yes, I would say that. Protestantism likely would have been less widespread in England (although perhaps not, given that there were influences from Continental Protestantism that helped bring about further Protestantization of England during the reigns of Edward VI and Elizabeth I) had Henry not have broken with Rome.
You are aware that the first colonizers of the United States were Protestants from England? You are also aware that most of the Founding Fathers were of Protestant faith that had English origins? So are saying that if Henry VIII had not broke from Rome that the United States would still have as large a Protestant population as it does? Are you also saying that countries that England later colonized as part of their Empire and adopted Protestantism would still be Protestant if Henry had not broke from the Catholic Church?