J,
I can understand that you believe that the intention was not to destroy the OHCAC. I also see that you make a generalization as to what “they” believed. Now I am all for changning my mind. I ask you to cite references to this belief of yours and how you came to believe so and then explain how you came to understand what you generalize as what is called they believe.
Then tell me how it is Anglicans departed and on what basis they remain apart. Compare and contrast that with the Anglican-ordinate in Texas where Anglicans are returning to the OHCAC.
Then explain how the Lutheran notion of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide was a refrom and not an invention.
I will wait for you to support this view and when you are ready I will provide you evidence of my view.
Until you can support your belief the purpose of the reformation/deformation was to destroy and replace the OHCAC with Protestant thought.
Thank you
A minority of Anglicans have joined with the Catholic Church. Lets not pretend that people have seen the fullness the Catholics claim to have and ran there. And many of the Fathers spoke in these terms. Many of the fathers said we were saved by faith alone, they rejected that Peter was the Rock, they often had conflicting ideas as to what something was referring to.
Gregory, writing to the patriarch at Alexandria, forbids that he be called universal bishop. And in the Records he says that in the Council of Chalcedon the primacy was offered to the bishop of Rome, but was not accepted.
Many ancient synods have been proclaimed and held in which the bishop of Rome did not preside; as that of Nice and most others. This, too, testifies that the Church did not then acknowledge the primacy or superiority of the bishop of Rome.
Jerome says: If the question is concerning authority, the world is greater than the city. Wherever there has been a bishop, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, he is of the same dignity and priesthood.
most of the holy Fathers, as Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, Hilary, and Bede, interpret this passage: Upon this rock. Chrysostom says thus: “Upon this rock,” not upon Peter. For He built His Church not upon man, but upon the faith of Peter. But what was his faith? “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Hilary says: To Peter the Father revealed that he should say, “Thou art the Son of the living God.” Therefore the building of the Church is upon this rock of confession; this faith is the foundation of the Church. The Church has received no certain fixed tradition as to what our Lord meant by “the Rock” in Matthew 16: 17-20. Some of the Fathers taught that Christ himself is the rock, others that the faith in his Godhead and Messiahship which St. Peter confessed is meant, others again that St. Peter is the rock. Several of the Fathers held two of these opinions together, and some held all three. St Augustine in his earlier writings taught that St. Peter is the rock, but afterwords he gave up that view, and held that Christ is the rock. His words are–“I said in a certain place of the apostle st. Peter, that upon him, as upon the rock the Church was founded…But I know that afterwords I most often expounded that saying of our Lord–Thou art Peter and upon this rock, I will build my Church” as meaning upon Him whom Peter confessed saying–“Thou art the Christ, the Son fo the living God.” Let the reader choose which one of these two interpretations is more probable’. The fact that this great teacher changed his mind as to the meaning of the passage, and left it an open question to his readers’ shows that he had no idea that any important doctrine depends on its interpretation.
It is very noticeable that, if we accept the popes and the persons closely associated with the Roman see, the fathers, who understand the rock to be st. Peter, in no way connect our lords promise with the institution of the Papacy.
St. Peter may be regarded as the rock, because he first confessed belief in the person and office of Christ, and first was nominated to be an apostle. He was first in order amongst the twelve, but had no jurisdiction over the rest of the apostles. He was not their Lord, but their leader: he was “primus inter pares,” i.e., first among equals. The fathers lay great stress on the equality of the apostles.
If St. Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built, we must remember that the other apostles are also spoken of as foundations of the Church (see Eph.2:20; Rev. 21:14). The power of the keys promised first to St. Peter, was afterwards promised by our lord to all the apostles in similar words (compare St. Matthew 16:19 with18:18); and it was simultaneously communicated to all(St. Thomas excepted) by our Lords mysterious breathing, and by His words of power, on the evening of the day of His resurrection (see St. John 20:21-24).
This goes to point. You can say that you have a different understanding. You cannot say that these Fathers of the Church did not say these things because that is flatly false. Suppose I were a Priest and I went to the Vatican and said what St. Augustine or St. John Chrysostom said. What would happen to me? I would be ordered to recant or be defrocked. The Roman Catholic beliefs are all about faith. You have no more proof for your beliefs than any Anglican, Lutheran, Orthodox, or old Catholic. The Roman Church picks a Tradition and declares it valid, while denying other Traditions that are just as Apostolic as they one they figured was true.
And who listens to his nonsense, oh right anti-Catholics? 
