Who leads the protestants?

  • Thread starter Thread starter atg2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bluegoat said:
It probably isn’t a good idea to try to limit the work of the Holy Spirit. Even the Catholic Church doesn’t say that it is not at work in Protestant, and even non-Christian communities.
Click to expand...
He can, but He is a servant in those churches, coming when they call Him, and then getting out of the way when His Presence gets uncomfortable.

He actually runs the Catholic Church, though, through the Magisterium. 🙂
 
Bluegoat, my understanding of history is that the Anglican church was founded by King Henry VIII after his annulment application was denied by the Pope. Is that you understanding or have I missed something?
 
Ockham said:
Bluegoat, my understanding of history is that the Anglican church was founded by King Henry VIII after his annulment application was denied by the Pope. Is that you understanding or have I missed something?
Click to expand...
There are some good threads on this topic if you are interested. I don’t think I would say it is false, but it doesn’t really correspond to the way those in the English reformation understood it, and it doesn’t throw much real light on it.

The English Church wasn’t a totally new organization with new beliefs or anything like that, and it very much considered itself a continuation of what came before. At that time there were a lot of issues, not just in England, relating to the relation of the papacy to secular governments - it was a problem everywhere, and was really causing big political problems that had little to do with the Church. There were many people involved in government throughout Europe who wanted the Church somehow removed from secular government, and it was also true in England, and many of them also had other ideas that were associated with reform. Henry, however, was actually quite a staunch Catholic.

He only took a different rout after the divorce issue. It was rather a blatant case of the difficulties that were being experienced where politics and government intersected - normally the divorce would not have been a problem, except that the Pope was under the power of the Emporor, who did not want the divorce. Henry became convinced that there was a problem with the government of the Church, though he was influenced by others in his government who were actually much more commited to that agenda.

So Henry broke the English Church away from the governance of the Pope, but he did not embrace many other reform ideals. But there was never a conception that it was a new body. Remember that the English Church had not always been under the Pope in Rome. When the Pope sent Augustine of Canterbury to missionize the British at the end of the 6th century, he found that the a church of England already existed, and was quite strong with a tradition of its own. The Reformers in England saw the change as a return to this Church, before Rome began to take such a powerful political role, and they say this as being more true to the nature of what ecclesiastical government should be.

So I would say that one of the major questions in all parts o the Reformation had to do with whether the Church had taken a wrong turn in its understanding of the power of the papacy and its relation to secular governments. The English reformation and the Lutherans saw themselves as a continuation of the Catholic Church, minus some bad ideas that were never meant to be a part of it - in the case of the English, they ultimately remained very Catholic.
 
Bluegoat said:
The English Church wasn’t a totally new organization with new beliefs or anything like that, and it very much considered itself a continuation of what came before. At that time there were a lot of issues, not just in England, relating to the relation of the papacy to secular governments - it was a problem everywhere, and was really causing big political problems that had little to do with the Church. There were many people involved in government throughout Europe who wanted the Church somehow removed from secular government, and it was also true in England, and many of them also had other ideas that were associated with reform. Henry, however, was actually quite a staunch Catholic.
Click to expand...
With all due respect Bluegoat (Christian to Christian) this argument is revision and spin doctoring. King Henry VIII formally separated from the Catholic Church with the Act of Supremacy in 1534 along with other legislation. He made himself the head of the church in England. The problem is Jesus Christ made St. Peter and his successors the head of His church on Earth. As the Church of England does not recognize St. Peter’s successor as its head it has in fact broken away from Christ’s church.

Furthermore, divorce isn’t just forbidden by the Church or Pope, Jesus Christ forbade it (Mark 10:9).

So the answer to the OP’s question is mortals (who leads the Protestants?). King Henry VIII, Martin Luther, John Knox, Joe Smith, Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker, etc, whereas the Catholic Church is lead by Jesus Christ under the direction of the Pope (Matthew 16:16).

I look forward to an end of the protesting and all Christians being back in one flock again.
 
We Methodists have bishops. (Although they are not exactly the same thing as Catholic, Orthodox, nor even Anglican bishops).
We have the “Little Red Book”, (which is a large brown book, but I ;)digress) The Book of Discipline.
We have 84,952 & 17/46s committees per parish.
And then, we have :Dthese guys: youtube.com/watch?v=m_MaJDK3VNE
 
Bluegoat said:
It probably isn’t a good idea to try to limit the work of the Holy Spirit. Even the Catholic Church doesn’t say that it is not at work in Protestant, and even non-Christian communities.
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit works within all Christians. That said, the Holy Spirit does not give Protestants a coherent leadership. If they are all being led and inspired by the Holy Spirit, would they not agree on basic doctrine?
 
Ockham said:
With all due respect Bluegoat (Christian to Christian) this argument is revision and spin doctoring. King Henry VIII formally separated from the Catholic Church with the Act of Supremacy in 1534 along with other legislation. He made himself the head of the church in England. The problem is Jesus Christ made St. Peter and his successors the head of His church on Earth. As the Church of England does not recognize St. Peter’s successor as its head it has in fact broken away from Christ’s church.

Furthermore, divorce isn’t just forbidden by the Church or Pope, Jesus Christ forbade it (Mark 10:9).

So the answer to the OP’s question is mortals (who leads the Protestants?). King Henry VIII, Martin Luther, John Knox, Joe Smith, Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Bakker, etc, whereas the Catholic Church is lead by Jesus Christ under the direction of the Pope (Matthew 16:16).

I look forward to an end of the protesting and all Christians being back in one flock again.
Click to expand...
As far as Henry’s case went, it would not normally have been a problem for him to remarry in the circumstances in which he found himself. The marriage to Catherine would have been declared invalid, and he would have remarried. It was not an uncommon thing to happen, with the approval of the Holy See - there is little question that Henry’s case was decided on political, not religious grounds. There is plenty of documentation to support that. In the end, he still claimed that the marriage had been invalid, not that it had been somehow dissolved. The CC of course did and still recognizes that such a thing is possible - Henry didn’t really try to change the understanding of marriage in that way at all, so I think it is a moot point as far as the Reformation is concerned.

The headship of the English Church by the monarch is not really comparable to the position of the Pope - it does not claim to be the same kind of headship at all. It would be better to say their is no equivalent to the Pope.

The Anglican perspective (and I don’t think you would find this thought developed in Henry’s time) is not that the English somehow separated from the True Church, that being the CC, but that both are divergent from what the True Church is meant to be. Many Anglicans feel that the Bishop of Rome has an important role that is, alas, now missing from their own particular organization. But they would also say that the CC had diverged from the True Church, in a variety of ways, but especially in fundamentally misunderstanding the role of the Bishop of Rome. So from that POV, as much as Protestantism is missing the role of Rome, Catholicism is misunderstanding/misusing it.

The claim that the English (or any other group) erred in breaking away because they broke away from the successor of Peter depends on the idea that the CC view of the role of Peter is correct. Since that was actually one of the main areas of contention, it is only a convincing argument to Catholics - Protestants and the Orthodox find it among the least convincing arguments that could be given.
 
nsper7 said:
Technically, if they are Baptized validly (water, intent, Trinitarian formula) and, thus, connected (albeit imperfectly) to the Church, the Pope is their leader, they simply reject his legitimate authority.
Click to expand...
That’s an excellent point. Cuts right to the meaning of the so-called “controversy” in Unam Sanctum: "Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff"
 
Bluegoat said:
As far as Henry’s case went, it would not normally have been a problem for him to remarry in the circumstances in which he found himself. The marriage to Catherine would have been declared invalid, and he would have remarried. It was not an uncommon thing to happen, with the approval of the Holy See - there is little question that Henry’s case was decided on political, not religious grounds. There is plenty of documentation to support that. In the end, he still claimed that the marriage had been invalid, not that it had been somehow dissolved. The CC of course did and still recognizes that such a thing is possible - Henry didn’t really try to change the understanding of marriage in that way at all, so I think it is a moot point as far as the Reformation is concerned.
Click to expand...
King Henry VIII may have very well had a good case for annulment but he didn’t go about it the proper way nor had one granted. This means he acted outside the Church in respect to his marriage and much more so when he created a new denomination.
Bluegoat said:
The headship of the English Church by the monarch is not really comparable to the position of the Pope - it does not claim to be the same kind of headship at all. It would be better to say their is no equivalent to the Pope
Click to expand...
So it is a headless church? My understand of the Act of Supremacy is King Henry VIII pronounced himself as head of the newly formed Church of England.
Bluegoat said:
The Anglican perspective (and I don’t think you would find this thought developed in Henry’s time) is not that the English somehow separated from the True Church, that being the CC, but that both are divergent from what the True Church is meant to be.
Click to expand...
So who then is the True Church?
Bluegoat said:
The claim that the English (or any other group) erred in breaking away because they broke away from the successor of Peter depends on the idea that the CC view of the role of Peter is correct. Since that was actually one of the main areas of contention, it is only a convincing argument to Catholics - Protestants and the Orthodox find it among the least convincing arguments that could be given.
Click to expand...
Of course the Catholic position is the pope is the successor of St. Peter. There is a clear line of succession and Jesus Christ Himself handed the keys of heaven to St. Peter with the authority to bind and loose on earth. I’m not sure how that’s not convincing.

Jesus never used the plural of the word church. St. Paul makes frequent mention of a singular church holding authority over Christendom. Only the Catholic Church holds the Four Marks with a clear line of succession from Christ Himself. Every other Christian denomination has a mortal start date like the Church of England with King Henry VIII in the 16th Century.

The notion that the CoE didn’t separate is like saying the United States is really still a part of England given its shared principles of democracy and free markets.
 
Bluegoat said:
As far as Henry’s case went, it would not normally have been a problem for him to remarry in the circumstances in which he found himself. The marriage to Catherine would have been declared invalid, and he would have remarried.
Click to expand...
Apart from the little inconvenience that at the time of his marriage to Catherine, he had applied for and received a Dispensation to marry her, which voided any and all possible impediments to the marriage (including the fact that she was his cousin) - now, once having voided all impediments, the Pope could not then turn around and claim that there were impediments to the marriage.

Since he could not get what he wanted from the Church, he broke all ties with it and founded his own church. The fact that he subsequently executed all of the Bishops who remained loyal to the Pope and to the Catholic Church shows that the break was intentional.
 
Just_Lurking said:
I think I’ve seen this to – the “Catholic egg hatching into the Protestant sects”. The theory goes like this:

Q: How do you tell which of the Catholic and Orthodox split off from the one true Church, and which remained faithful to Christ?

A: The group that split off started following their own desires over God, so they would be doomed to infighting and continuing splits. So which of the Catholics and the Orthodox experienced continued splitting and subdividing after 1054? – The Catholics, splitting again with the Protestant reformation, and subsequently after that.
Click to expand...
Of course, if THAT’s how logic works, then the Mormons are the TRUE church, right?

After all, the great schsim between the RC and the EO, by your logic, PROVES the great apostasy actually occurred, right??? 😉

Commence backpedalling!

Note to Mormons: don’t get TOO excited, y’all have quite your share of schisms too!
 
manualman said:
After all, the great schsim between the RC and the OC, by your logic, PROVES the great apostasy actually occurred, right??? 😉
Click to expand...
It’s not MY logic. It’s the logic of people who are trying to prove that Protestants are wrong by pointing out the number of Protestant denominations. Obviously I disagree with both the logic and its conclusion.
 
Bluegoat said:
  1. As far as Henry’s case went, it would not normally have been a problem for him to remarry in the circumstances in which he found himself. The marriage to Catherine would have been declared invalid, and he would have remarried. It was not an uncommon thing to happen, with the approval of the Holy See - there is little question that Henry’s case was decided on political, not religious grounds. There is plenty of documentation to support that.
…
  1. The Anglican perspective (and I don’t think you would find this thought developed in Henry’s time) is not that the English somehow separated from the True Church, that being the CC, but that both are divergent from what the True Church is meant to be. Many Anglicans feel that the Bishop of Rome has an important role that is, alas, now missing from their own particular organization. But they would also say that the CC had diverged from the True Church, in a variety of ways, but especially in fundamentally misunderstanding the role of the Bishop of Rome. So from that POV, as much as Protestantism is missing the role of Rome, Catholicism is misunderstanding/misusing it.
Click to expand...
  1. Kind of. You may be correct that it was common for Rome to scandalously give out inappropriate declarations of nullity to royalty when requested. That hardly justifies rebellion when such a declaration is validly denied, politically motivated or not. Annullment decisions have never been an area claimed to be infallible, just authoritative.
  2. Wow, you’re a Branch theory, high church Anglican? I thought CAF poster “Contarini” was the last one in America!
 
Just_Lurking said:
It’s not MY logic. It’s the logic of people who are trying to prove that Protestants are wrong by pointing out the number of Protestant denominations. Obviously I disagree with both the logic and its conclusion.
Click to expand...
You are right, but only because you distort the catholic challenge. We don’t claim that subsequent schisms prove the invalidity of a group that claims to be a ‘church.’ We point out the empirical falsehood of the claim that all a christian needs is a bible and the Holy Spirit to discern God’s revelation with certainty. Not all Protestants make such a claim, but some do. And it’s head-in-the-sand thinking.

The Catholic position makes no claim that we will all somehow have unified beliefs at heart. Such a thing is an impossibility since puny human beings could spend hundreds of years on earth and not come close to learning all there is to know about God and His ultimate plan for us. We all mature at wildly different rates and in different areas. What we DO claim is that God didn’t leave us without somewhere to turn to that would point us in the right direction. He gave us Scripture AND Tradition AND the Holy Spirit AND the Magisterium. That last one undoubtedly to help with our large capacity for self delusion…
 
jmcrae said:
Apart from the little inconvenience that at the time of his marriage to Catherine, he had applied for and received a Dispensation to marry her, which voided any and all possible impediments to the marriage (including the fact that she was his cousin) - now, once having voided all impediments, the Pope could not then turn around and claim that there were impediments to the marriage.

Since he could not get what he wanted from the Church, he broke all ties with it and founded his own church. The fact that he subsequently executed all of the Bishops who remained loyal to the Pope and to the Catholic Church shows that the break was intentional.
Click to expand...
Well, Henry’s argument was that the dispensation was no good because new information had come to light - that the earlier marriage had been consummated, when the earlier decision had been made on the grounds that it had not. It doesn’t seem likely to me, but of course it is impossible to say now. If I recall correctly, Wolsey wanted him to argue the case on other grounds, which he thought were much stronger, but Henry refused. I’m afraid I don’t remember the details.

But I think what was important about the whole exchange historically was not so much the details of Henry’s marriage issues, but that the political was interacting with the religious in a way that was becoming clearly a problem throughout Europe. In the normal course of things, Henry would likely have been granted an annulment, whether his case had been good or not, because it would have been seen by the Holy See as important for the political stability of England. (There was a general view that lack of a male heir would lead to political chaos.) It was not uncommon for such political decisions about what ought to have been religious matters to happen. But Henry was refused, again for political, not religious, reasons - the Pope was physically under the power of the Emperor and so could not cross him on the issue of the annulment.

In the post where I was asked about this, I gave a bit of history to essentially say that Henry’s annulment was an small issue that a larger problem, that was happening throughout Europe, was hung on in England. That larger problem was the role of the papacy and how it interacted with secular government.

I don’t think there is any question that the break from Rome was intentional, so I am not sure what you mean by that.
 
Bluegoat said:
I often feel that I am part of a strange, small, sect.
Click to expand...
Alas, me too.

You present a solid account of history and I wish I had more time to delve deeper into this subject. To summarize, are you saying the Church of England’s split with the larger Church was justified because the Pope was meddling in the affairs of politics too much?

On a side note, how are you enjoying this time of year? Nova Scotia is so beautiful with the changing of the colours and the celtic fesitvals in autumn
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top