Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[benedictus2]

Beside your point, yes. Not beside my point. Which is what Henry was primarily doing. That is, what the history involved was.

But I thought the whole point of this discussion was whether his move was legitimate? Explaining why a move was made does not make it legitimate.

Edward’s protectors made the move to Protestantism. Elizabeth moved back to the center.

Either way, it moves the Anglican Church away from Catholic Doctrine and into Protestant error. And that is the main point I wanted to make clear to Seamus: the Anglican Church ceased to be Catholic.

 

[benedictus2]

No problem, I think. I’ve done it before.

From my files:

Henry like sparklies. Was always on the look-out for a new and nifty title, or gee-gaw to add to his collection. In 1512, he petitioned Julius II to award him the title possessed by Louis XII, “Most Christian King” (you didn’t just call yourself something like that; it was awarded). Not sure if “Most Christian” was a zero sum title, but Julius did award it to Henry, and, for good measure, secretly gave him the French throne. All he had to do to claim it was to defeat Louis in the then on-going unpleasantness between the Holy League and France. That part never happened, though Henry tried, after Ferdinand of Spain finked out on him. But Henry got his “Christianissimus”.

In 1515, Henry wanted something else to pad his resume. Various ideas were passed around: “Protector of the Holy See”, maybe “Defender”, from the English side. The first was turned down because it already belonged to the Holy Roman Emperor, the second was the property of the Swiss. Some in Rome countered with “King Apostolic” (interesting combination) or “Orthodox”. The Pope vetoed both. In 1516, the title of “Defender of the Faith” was proposed from England. Leo ignored it, and Henry pouted.

Henry gave up until May, 1521, when Wolsey wrote once again to Rome, asking for a pretty for Henry. Leo passed it to a committee of Cardinals. Forthcoming were suggestions:

“Rex Fidelis”, "“Orthodoxus”, “Ecclesiaticus” ,
“Protector”, “Anglicus”. The last looks like they were running out of ideas.

When the Cardinals inquired just why Henry warranted another honor, the part he had played supporting the Holy See against Louis, 9 years before, was mentioned. And there was the Assertio, of which Rome had heard (it was in draft in May 1521, printed in July, sent to Rome in September, after the Cardinals had been considering the matter for a few months. So, before the Assertio was received and presented to Leo (his copy bound in Henry’s favorite cloth of gold), a list of titles for Henry to choose from was shipped to England.

The Assertio probably tipped the scales. About the time it was presented to Leo, Henry chose the same title that had been suggested by England 6 years before: Defensor Fidei . Leo granted it six weeks after he received the book. Doubtless directly inspired by the Assertio, some cardinals then wanted to add a flourish to Henry’s prize such as* Gloriosus* or* Fidelissimus*, but Leo vetoed it.

So Henry got his sparklie, partially because of the Assertio, partially because of the Holy League, partially because he was a pain in the neck. It was intended as a title for him personally, though he thought it was hereditary. Paul III took it back, but Parliament thought it looked nice, and attached it to the Throne, in 1544. Mary took it off, Elizabeth put it back, and it’s there now by legislative fiat.

History is fun.

GKC

Great post. Very enlightening!

 

[GKC]

Great post. Very enlightening!

You are very welcome. Glad you enjoyed it.

History is full of fiddley bits; details. I like details.

GKC

 

[GKC]

But I thought the whole point of this discussion was whether his move was legitimate? Explaining why a move was made does not make it legitimate.

Either way, it moves the Anglican Church away from Catholic Doctrine and into Protestant error. And that is the main point I wanted to make clear to Seamus: the Anglican Church ceased to be Catholic.

No, I was discussing why it was inevitable. If not Henry, then someone, eventually.

As to your ultimate, above, some Anglicans see it slightly differently.

GKC

 

[benedictus2]

No, I was discussing why it was inevitable. If not Henry, then someone, eventually.

I do realize where you are coming from. But the inevitability of something happening (that something being a terribly thing) does not make it any less terrible.

And this is where I am coming from: one can give as much explanation as one can for the evil that was done, but it does not make it any less evil.

As to your ultimate, above, some Anglicans see it slightly differently.

That they see it differently does not mean that their view is true and correct. Only that they see it differently.

 

[seamusmohr]

=benedictus

Oh please, I answered that several posts ago when I gave those links. Have you read them. All the answers are there for you to read but here you are carrying on the pretence of not having been answered sufficiently

Your answers, that I’ve read, give no coverage to the instance of the Peters primacy
descending on to the shoulders of the papacy. As a Catholic, I understand quite well the status of Peter within the early Church, what you and your friends , ‘still,’ have not done is to give any proof whatsoever of this transition. Proof from either Holy Tradition or from scriptures. You appear to think that if the Bishop of Rome plays his part as a Catholic Bishop or some early father gives him a kind word, this is tantamount to recognising some special possition, that had not even been heard of at that time!

For the understanding of scripture, the Roman Church demands scripture be understood through the authority of the early Fathers. Not popes or medieval fathers, or even some early father talking about the City or anything else, it is his authority, that is in question!

Do you want me to cut and paste all those documents here?

Yes please, so that your comrades can see your inadequate understanding of Church history!

So the English Church was most definitely Catholic before it became Anglican. The Anglican Church IS NOT Catholic.

Enthusiasm without knowledge! to paraphrase S.John of Kronstadt’s comments on Roman belief! The British Church has always been Catholic , as you have already been shown iby another correspondent. It was known as ,the Celtic Church, Baeda in his history 750 AD, refers to it as Ecclesia Anglicana, the ‘English Church’! In about 1215, at Runnymede, the same terms were used to identify it, Ecclesia Anglicana. All through the middle ages in correspondence with foreign churches ‘Sante Eglise dAngleterre ,’ was the phrase used by both the English and the overseas churches. In the debacle that was the intervention by the papacy when the Bishop of Rome tried to intervene in English politics and sought to overthrow the state and force a civil war on the English people, he called upon his English supporters to leave the Church and set up their own alters, following the call from Trent ,(1564.) This left a problem, the English Church retained the traditional name for the loyal Catholics and the Dissenting, or nonconforming people were ,ultimately known as Papists or Romanists then Roman Catholics! (D> Hayes. Hist Mag, 1963.)

As I mentioned above, no Church Father ever questioned the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Now the Anglican Church hold the Council of Chalcedon as binding. What did the Council Fathers say when the doctrinal definition of the hypostatic union was accepted? They acclaimed: “Peter has spoken through Leo”.
So my friend, I am sorry to say that you have got no leg to stand on on any of your arguments.

There was no need for Church Fathers to question the primacy of peter, it was not and is not now a problem, neither was the position of the Bishop of Rome’s position questioned, he was no more than a catholic bishop doing a bishop’s work, but when he over stepped himself as he did when he twice interfered in the African Church, he was told in no uncertain way to mind his own business. Both S.Cyprian and later S.Augustine were amongst the Councils who told Rome to clear off!

Read, The Early Church and the Bishop of Rome! Father Puller!

Littledale, The Petrine Claims
finally, The Papacy by Denny.

All these books are obtainable on or from the internet!

The biggest problem is that the founder of your Church,** the murderous King Henry, recognized the Primacy of the Pope until he decided that he wanted to get rid of his wife! And that is the biggest problem for you.**

He recognised the status quo, no more! But remember for four or five hundred years Catholic Europe had been at loggerheads regarding the status of the papacy within the Church! Several Councils had discussed the matter and the power of the papacy was under threat, it was the inadequacy of the Continental Monarchs who failed to give support to the Council decisions.
Even More regarded the Pope as subserviant to the Councils.
{D.Hayes. History Mag. !963.]

]You know what, I have a rather illogical friend who will not leave the Anglican Church and yet he told me that he believes the Anglican Church was founded in sin

He was wrong, S.Dorotheus of Tyre ,Bishop and martyr claims that Christianity was brought to Britain by S.Simon Zelote as do the Orthodox, our first Bishop being S. Aristobulos
We are all sinners! We rely on Christ’s intervention to Save us . Henry was no worse than his equals, they were most of them rotten, both English, Norman or Foreign. How ever, you should really think twice before using Henry’s weakness’s as a stick to beat the English, John XII, in the NInth Century was the offspring of one pope and the pope’s own daughter. John was also his mother’s lover and they openly lived together until the Roman Populace threw them out.

 

[seamusmohr]

. Now the Anglican Church hold the Council of Chalcedon as binding. What did the Council Fathers say when the doctrinal definition of the hypostatic union was accepted? They acclaimed:“Peter has spoken through Leo."

Here is a classic example of your simplistic , approach, to the Catholic Church!

Leo, was doing no more than his job as a Catholic Bishop defending the faith! It is interesting that Rome still saw the Council as a means to settle a theological dispute, I mean a free one and not an in house one!
What you have got to understand is that he got entirely the same treatment did as S,Cyril at an earlier Council! He was allowed to put a case that has gone down in Catholic History, and we are all of us better for it, but it was accepted only after discussion and a free vote!
Then, his legates demanded that Dioscurus Bishop of Alex’ leave the Council. 'Either he departs or we do!" The Imperial Commissioner told them," If you hold the character of a judge, you must not plead as an accuser." They were made to sit in the middle with Dioscurus.He had no vote but took an active part in the discussion. He was
deprived of his Character of a bishop, but it was by the Council and not by Leo!

The Bishop of Cyrus had been deposed by a small council and Rome sought his restoration! Leo declared his deposition invalid. Obviously the Council of Chalcedon, didn’t understand that the Pope,’ had full and supreme power over the Universal Church,’ Theodoret was allowed in but without any vote or speech! His case came up again in the 8th sess, and Leo’s restoration , to him of his full rights was totally ignored and as far as I can tell, was never even pleaded. He was allowed to state his case and had to clear himself by writing down his views on Nestorianism!

S.Leo’s authority came in a big way because he was allowed to use the Stasi as a means of enforcing his authority!

 

[benedictus2]

I’ve already given you that answer! Do read the mail.It was custom and practice! Every King in Europe was head of the Church in his own Country.

Oh really? Please provide proof. You seem to be forgetting that before King Henry made himself head of the Church, he wasn’t. That is why he had to make himself one.

Besides, you are the one who is so adamant about spiritual matters being decided by Church Fathers and Councils so again, which Church Father or Council said so?

As a republican I find that distasteful, but it is a fact of history!

Wrong. It is a fabrication of your fevered imagination.

Read this slowly. King Henry would not have needed an act of parliament to be made head of the Church in England if he was already it’s head.

They were simply following the path of the Roman Emperor right up to 1453! Constantine showed firmly who was Head of the Church in the Roman Empire

Sigh! This is really not getting through is it?

Constantine never showed that he was head of the Church. As you rightly agreed with me, he didn’t even have a vote in the Nicean Council. If he was the head, then how come he had no say in it? All he could do was provide the hospitality.

Muddled thinking seamus. Muddled thinking.

and henry continued to use what means he had inherited to rule his dominion.

If this is an inherited authority then why did he have to ask the Pope for the decree of nullity? Why did he not just nullify it himself? Why did he need an act of parliament to declare this so?

Henry , was thwarted by the Pope and his court in some very underhand business, money passed hands, the French King had gained his lustful way through buying the pope’s authority, Henry was doing no more than the custom at that time. Unfortunately, the papacy was unable to come across on its part of the dreadful business, he was a prisoner of the Queens uncle.

And all these totally irrelevant to whether he was always the head of the Church in England.

There is a great deal of literature regarding the attitude of the Church to this matter when I quoted some from a Catholic source, you sneered, I suppose it covered a gap in your understanding so I’ll say no more. GKC, explained the matter quite well, I thought, did you bother to read it?

And as I have explained to GKC, all these have no bearing on the illegitimacy of the actions. No bearing at all. Explanations don’t exculpate. All it does is explain why the dastardly deed was done. All it does is explain the motives but it does not make the act right.

Suppose a man robbed a housel and this act was witness by another man. This robber then decides to kill the witness so that there will be no one to tell on him. When he was finally apprehended he said that the reason he killed the other man was so there would be no witness to his crime. Now that explains why he did it but it does not make the deed right. Can you follow that?

The fact is all the Bishops of the Church accepted this attitude, they had very few choices!

They accepted that the emperor was head of the empire but not head of the church. Sure the emperor meddled but that he was given leeway regarding this did not make him head of the Church.

But it as well to understand that Henry, in his thieving, and ghastly behaviour towards women in particular and his subjects in general was not doing anything that had not been done throughout Europe since the Saxon Monarchy, i.e. since 1066!

So what, that has no bearing on the matter at hand. His being a scoundrel is beside the point. What we are discussing here is whether he was right to do what he did as regards declaring himself head of the Church in England and he was not. Sorry but that is just plain fact of history.

You will notice, that Henry had the support of his people over the business of the papacy?, They were tired of the papacy using the Catholic Church as a source of cash to fight his dynastic wars in Northern Italy!

Again so what? So what if the people supported him? The Church is not a democracy, never was and never will be. Christ never put anything to a vote.

 

[benedictus2]

Your answers, that I’ve read, give no coverage to the instance of the Peters primacy descending on to the shoulders of the papacy. As a Catholic, I understand quite well the status of Peter within the early Church, what you and your friends , ‘still,’ have not done is to give any proof whatsoever of this transition.

So you think there was no office that was being passed? Since you acknowledge that the apostles passed on their mantle to the bishops then does it not stand to reason that Peter’s was passed on as well?

You’re not thinking very clearly that you can’t see that you are contradicting yourself.

Proof from either Holy Tradition or from scriptures

Well hello, you accept the Bishops who formed the Councils.

You appear to think that if the Bishop of Rome plays his part as a Catholic Bishop or some early father gives him a kind word, this is tantamount to recognising some special possition, that had not even been heard of at that time!

You really did not read that document so here it is spoon fed to you:

Pope Julius I
“[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you” (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

Council of Ephesus

“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Council of Chalcedon
**
**
“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

 

[seamusmohr]

So you think there was no office that was being passed? Since you acknowledge that the apostles passed on their mantle to the bishops then does it not stand to reason that Peter’s was passed on as well?

Because he was an Apostle, one of Twelve.it ws a commonplace to talk about the mantle of peter! He was just one of a number and his authority was passed on to all bishops as was the authority of Paul, James, John or Andrew etc.

]Pope Julius !

"[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]?

Didn’t all the Apostles receive the same keys, though at a different time and date?

“THIS IS THE FAITH OF THE FATHERS”?
No one is disputing this, but the man was a bishop who had an enormous contribution to make! Nothing else, it still had to be put before the bishops and fathers, there was nothing taken for granted, it only proves he wasn’t another Honorius! Further more the really pertinent bit to our discussion was uttered by the deacon, the stamping and cheering was given to record the bishops agreement with the statement. Further, the date was 451! Four hundred years after Christ 's death, or Peter’s Promotion, not exactly contemporary!
Neither is Phillip exactly a free agent! He is a servant of Leo! Will not do friend! Finally it was the pope at this timeLeo who first claimed the exaggerated status of the papacy, again some four hundred years after the time. Might work for you and your team , but not for anyone who reads Church History!

[/QUOTE]

 

[benedictus2]

Here is a classic example of your simplistic , approach, to the Catholic Church!

Leo, was doing no more than his job as a Catholic Bishop defending the faith! It is interesting that Rome still saw the Council as a means to settle a theological dispute, I mean a free one and not an in house one!

What is so hard to understand about the acclamation that “Peter has spoken through Leo”?

You asked for a Council declaration I gave you one. It is that simple. Peter has spoken through Leo. You accepted the primacy of Peter remember?

 

[seamusmohr]

As I have told you, none of your replies deal with the question of either S.Peter or the question of S.Peter’s Primacy settling on the Popes shoulders.The Bishop of Rome is no more than one Bishop, or One patriarch amongst many. You have to prove this, we have to prove nothing, your claims were unknown amongst the early fathers. It is Rome that is making additions to the Deposit of Faith!
Thanks anyhow! Your work was appreciated!

 

[seamusmohr]

What is so hard to understand about the acclamation that “Peter has spoken through Leo”?

You asked for a Council declaration I gave you one. It is that simple. Peter has spoken through Leo. You accepted the primacy of Peter remember?

 

[benedictus2]

Because he was an Apostle, one of Twelve.it ws a commonplace to talk about the mantle of peter! He was just one of a number

Sorry, the Church Fathers did not understand it like that at all. Peter was the Prime Apostle.

More to the point is how God and Christ understood it. When Peter made the declaration about Christ, Jesus said that it was the Father who revealed it to Peter and because of this gave him the keys. Now if all apostles were the same, God the Father could have revealed this to all of them and they could have replied in unison “ You are the Christ the Son of the living God” but guess what, that’s not the way it happened.

You ought to read the Gospel.

and his authority was passed on to all bishops as was the authority of Paul, James, John or Andrew etc.

Sorry but no. His authority was passed on to his successor.

This tells us nothing except that Julius was simply acting as a clearing house for important matters regarding the wider church! This was the duty of all the Patriarchal Sees!

Can you see how you are contradicting yourself now? First you said that the authority was passed on to all the bishops, now you are saying it is only to the Patriarchal Sees. Make up your mind.

Didn’t all the Apostles receive the same keys, though at a different time and date?

Nope. Not all received the keys. Only Peter. The other apostles were given the right to bind and lose but not the keys. Only Peter was given that.

No one is disputing this, but the man was a bishop who had an enormous contribution to make!

What is so hard to understand about the acclamation of the Bishops at Chalcedon that “Peter has spoken through Leo”?

Nothing else, it still had to be put before the bishops and fathers, there was nothing taken for granted, it only proves he wasn’t another Honorius! Further more the really pertinent bit to our discussion was uttered by the deacon, the stamping and cheering was given to record the bishops agreement with the statement. Further, the date was 451! Four hundred years after Christ 's death, or Peter’s Promotion, not exactly contemporary!

Aaah seamus, you are now clutching at straws. You asked for proof and when given one you go round and round this way and that to avoid having to see its truth.

It was not a promotion. Peter was always considered the prime apostle. At the first council in Jerusalem, he was the one who made the ruling. The revelation that the gentiles are to be accepted was revealed to him alone. If there was any promotion done it was done by Christ by singling Peter out.

Neither is Phillip exactly a free agent! He is a servant of Leo! Will not do friend! Finally it was the pope at this timeLeo who first claimed the exaggerated status of the papacy, again some four hundred years after the time. Might work for you and your team , but not for anyone who reads Church History!

Sorry but all this amounts to nothing because of this acclamation by the bishops: Peter has spoken through Leo.

 

[benedictus2]

As I have told you, none of your replies deal with the question of either S.Peter or the question of S.Peter’s Primacy settling on the Popes shoulders.

Oh but they do. Read again.

The Bishop of Rome is no more than one Bishop,

Sorry but the Church Father’s didn’t think so. They may have disagreed with the Popes but they never denied that the Pope had the authority to make binding decisions. If they accept that the Pope had primacy it was because as in the Council at Chalcedon, they knew that Peter speaks through the Pope.
or One patriarch amongst many. You have to prove this, we have to prove nothing, your claims were unknown amongst the early fathers. It is Rome that is making additions to the Deposit of Faith!
Sorry but that is not quite what history says. Rome did not make any additions. Rome was always the Prime See.

Thanks anyhow! Your work was appreciated!

Your welcome. But the work was not mine, it was someone else’s scholarly work that I happened to find in the net.

Here is a short testimony of an Anglican who became Catholic with reasons as to why he converted. ad2000.com.au/articles/2009/apr2009p13_3013.html

 

[GKC]

I do realize where you are coming from. But the inevitability of something happening (that something being a terribly thing) does not make it any less terrible.

And this is where I am coming from: one can give as much explanation as one can for the evil that was done, but it does not make it any less evil.

That they see it differently does not mean that their view is true and correct. Only that they see it differently.

But it doesn’t make it any less inevitable, either. The seeds lay in the conflict of an intertwined super-national entity and the rise of the nation state concept. Something was going to give.

GKC

 

[seamusmohr]

This is a Strawman agruement with you, the only one with no eveidence to support your cliam is YOU!.
In concert with His redemptive act, Jesus did three things that established the framework of His Church. First, He chose humans to carry out His work. He appointed Peter to be the visible head of the Church. Jesus said to Peter, “You are Rock and on this rock I will build my Church.” (Matthew 16: 18) Jesus said “build,” as in to create a structure. Jesus built His structure on specifically chosen human beings Peter and the apostles.

Read Denny, or Littledale, al;so read Orthodox Theologians, read your own Church canons, Scripture has to be interpreted as the Church tells us, the Holy Roman Church says it has to be understood through the filter of the early/holy Fathers, Anglicans used to say through the Greek Fathers!] They give you no support except possibly, negatively,by saying nothing! Without being rude, your own views are not important , as indeed neither are mine! Just give it us from the fathers, don’t loose your temper or try to bully! Read the literature I’ve quoted!

Second, Jesus gave Peter and the apostles the power and authority to carry out His work. “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.”(Matthew 16:19; 18:18) “Receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, whose sins you retain, they are retained.”(John 20:23)

This isn’t in doubt, should I go to a public Notary and get a signed statement to that effect?
What is all that to do with the Bishop of Rome assuming the mantle of Peter? Apart from the question of whether Peter was at Rome, or how long he stayed there, he also was instrumental in forming other great Patriarchies, wasn’t he? Read what Pope Gregory told ALexandria about S.Peter and his Seat?

Third, Jesus gave Peter and the apostles commands as to what that work should be. At the last supper, He commanded, “Do this in memory of Me.” (Luke 22:19) He commanded them to “Make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19), and to “Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature.” (Mark 16:15)

The early Church was structured in a hierarchical manner as it is today. We see in Acts, chapter 15 how the apostles and the elders came together under the leadership of St. Peter to decide the question of what was required of Gentiles. We also see how St. Peter was regarded as the head of the Church when St. Paul, “Went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas [Peter] and remained with him fifteen days.” (Galatians 1:18) There is no Scriptural evidence of independent local churches.

S.James the First Bishop of jerusalem and 'Brother of Our Lord and Saviour was the Chairman of the Jerusalem Council and gave the summing up!

The Catholic Church is the only church that can claim to have been founded by Christ personally.

I quite agree, what you have to realise, is that the Roman Church isn’t the Catholic Church and never was! Initially it was no more than the ,‘Suburbicarian Church of Rome’, the see of that city and a few towns round and about! It grew later to take in all of lower Italy and the three islands. Later still as I understand it was made to cover all Italy, that was because the Empire moved to Constantinople! It was simply a,’ particular ’ church in the sense of the Pauline use of the term!

Every other church traces its lineage back to a mere human person such as Martin Luther or John Wesley. The Catholic Church can trace its lineage back to Jesus Christ.

.
Who is arguing? But again you are still no more than a sect, because at the Council of Trent, you changed the apostolical system of Church order by your bishops surrendering their rights and responsibility on to the shoulders of the papacy! Read Littledale or Even any of the commentaries on that Council by Romans!]

who appointed St. Peter as the first pope. This line of popes has continued unbroken for almost 2,000 years.

God rules

 

[benedictus2]

I accept it quite clearly, It just doesn’t stand up as a base for the claims of the papacy, for the reasons I gave.

If you accept councils and you accept the authority of bishops well these are the bishops who said the acclamation.

 

[benedictus2]

But it doesn’t make it any less inevitable, either. The seeds lay in the conflict of an intertwined super-national entity, and the rise of the nation state concept. Something was going to give.

GKC

Yes that is true. But strangely enough, no other king declared himself head of the Church. It was not completely inevitable, unless pride makes things inevitable.

 

[GKC]

Yes that is true. But strangely enough, no other king declared himself head of the Church. It was not completely inevitable, unless pride makes things inevitable.

Because, oddly enough, Henry was making as small a change as he could. He took the Church in England private. All other changes, elsewhere, were more radical. Only one made the Church a national erastian Church.

GKC