Is the Pope the Successor of St Peter?

[Chrystabelle]

All my life I've been brought up to believe that because the Pope is the successor of St Peter therefore, the Roman Catholic church is the only true church. I've also been led to believe that the Pope has special powers from the Holy Spirit because he is St Peter's successor.

Another thing which has been instilled in me from a young age is that the Roman Catholic church is the only church with the 'True Presence' in the tabernacle. This (I have been told) has come about by the power of the Holy Spirit (through the Pope) which is passed down through the bishops and onto a priest when he is ordained.

This completely invalidates any other church from a Roman Catholic's perspective. I would really like to know the truth. How do Anglicans view their church and the Catholic church? Please be honest. Thank you.

[Torah613]

The part about the real presence is interesting because while it does reflect a typical RC attitude, it goes against the understanding of Rome itself. Rome recognizes the validity of the Sacraments in the Eastern Orthodox Churches for example, however the EO are not in Communion with Rome and so don't recieve that "gift of the spirit" you refer to.

In my personal view, yes the Pope of Rome is the successor to Peter as Peter founded that See. Also the Patriarch of Antioch is a successor to Peter. The Pope as a Christian Bishop either can or might not have special graces given by God to aid him in his ministry. However when you get right down to it, the chair of unity is in the local Bishop not someone lightyears away from both the actual people and the concerns of their life.

Joe Zollas

[SeenAndUnseen]

All my life I've been brought up to believe that because the Pope is the successor of St Peter therefore, the Roman Catholic church is the only true church. I've also been led to believe that the Pope has special powers from the Holy Spirit because he is St Peter's successor.

Another thing which has been instilled in me from a young age is that the Roman Catholic church is the only church with the 'True Presence' in the tabernacle. This (I have been told) has come about by the power of the Holy Spirit (through the Pope) which is passed down through the bishops and onto a priest when he is ordained.

This completely invalidates any other church from a Roman Catholic's perspective. I would really like to know the truth. How do Anglicans view their church and the Catholic church? Please be honest. Thank you.

Most Anglicans would agree that the pope is a successor of Peter -- but they would argue, with some merit, that all bishops are equally the successor of Peter. Anglicans do recognize the pope's prime palce among "equals."

[PaladinValer]

However, Anglicans also agree that he's lost that because of his errant claims.

The ABC is our first among equals. :)

[Torah613]

I thought it was CBS?

Joe Zollars

[PaladinValer]

/me eats JosephtheKansan

ABC > CBS anyway

[Torah613]

I personally prefer FOX due to the fact it airs the OC. But back to topic, I yield to the humilation of being eaten by a carnivore. ;)

Joe Zollars

[Andy Broadley]

/me eats JosephtheKansan

ABC > CBS anyway

BBC beats all.:)


I tend to see it a little like a family tree.

Peter at the top as the person on whom Jesus established His church.

I always thought of the Pope as a direct successor to him, but people like the ABC, the head of the EO church etc as also being 'decended' from him.

[Andy Broadley]

I personally prefer FOX due to the fact it airs the OC. But back to topic, I yield to the humilation of being eaten by a carnivore. ;)

Joe Zollars

To be eaten by King Paladin is an honour.;)

[PaladinValer]

BBC is actually pretty good whenever I manage to find and catch it. It is refreshing to see the news from a foreign perspective.

FOX is simply evil. Family Guy and the Simpsons are great, but their news service is blech.

[Andy Broadley]

BBC is actually pretty good whenever I manage to find and catch it. It is refreshing to see the news from a foreign perspective.

FOX is simply evil. Family Guy and the Simpsons are great, but their news service is blech.

Greetings Great King:bow:

Your kingdom yearns for your return.

Yea the BBC news is pretty good.

I have to say that I'm glad I don't have to watch American TV too much.

American Chopper is great, as is the Simpsons.

But apart from that, I much prefer British TV.

Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread, so I'm outa here.

[Torah613]

I rather like the BBC show "Vicar of Dibley" and "Fr. Ted" can be cracking good.

As for your family tree view, I think its pretty fair. Except the problem is ther eis no real head of the Eastern Orthodox Church. right now Bartholomew (Patriarch of Constantinople) is first among equals but he would be the first to tell you that he is not some "eastern pope." He is simply a Bishop with a lot of extra beurocratic duties.

That is why I say that Christ is the branch, and all Bishops are teh branches.

Joe Zollars

[Companion]

1. Are we sure that Peter was the founder of the Church in Rome?

2. Was Peter the bishop of Rome, a bishop in Rome or a missionary in Italy and for a while in Rome?

[Chrystabelle]

However, Anglicans also agree that he's lost that because of his errant claims.

The ABC is our first among equals.

What were the Pope's errant claims?

ABC = The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams? Doesn't he doubt certain things? He does not seem to be a very strong leader. Archbishop Runcie and Archbishop Carey were much more firm in their faith. Does ABC, Rowan Williams' shaky beliefs make Anglicans feel insecure about their church?


1. Are we sure that Peter was the founder of the Church in Rome?

2. Was Peter the bishop of Rome, a bishop in Rome or a missionary in Italy and for a while in Rome?

A very good point. I will have to look into that. Thank you.

[SirTimothy]

Insofar as both the sees of Jerusalem, Antioch and others are also the sucessors of St. Peter, and Cyprus is the Sees of Ss. Paul and Barnabas and others (well, most sees St. Paul founded, so he's got a lot of successors!)

Timothy

[SirTimothy]

ABC = The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams? Doesn't he doubt certain things? He does not seem to be a very strong leader. Archbishop Runcie and Archbishop Carey were much more firm in their faith. Does ABC, Rowan Williams' shaky beliefs make Anglicans feel insecure about their church?

Ummm... bluntly put that's baloney. Dr. Williams is as sure as them, he just isn't dishonest with himself. When he uses the word 'hope' involved with faith, he means it in the correct usage of the word, not the modern media way of putting it.

Timothy

[Chrystabelle]

Insofar as both the sees of Jerusalem, Antioch and others are also the sucessors of St. Peter, and Cyprus is the Sees of Ss. Paul and Barnabas and others (well, most sees St. Paul founded, so he's got a lot of successors!)

Timothy

Thanks for this information. Are these all branches of the Catholic church? And how does the Anglican church tie in with this?

[TomUK]

What were the Pope's errant claims?

ABC = The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams? Doesn't he doubt certain things? He does not seem to be a very strong leader. Archbishop Runcie and Archbishop Carey were much more firm in their faith. Does ABC, Rowan Williams' shaky beliefs make Anglicans feel insecure about their church?




A very good point. I will have to look into that. Thank you.

I agreed with you about Williams until i read an interview with him in The Guardian, a British newspaper. So much of what he says about leadership just seems to make sense.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1735404,00.html

Here's a brief snippet

AR: At [your meeting with journalists last year] - and I appreciate that was all on Chatham House rules so you don't have to - are you happy to talk about this? - there was a very striking moment when you said that you didn't see your role as being about moral leadership and the man from the Daily Mail almost fell off his chair.

AC: Yes, yes. Leadership is - is, to me, a very, very murky and complicated concept. Often, as I - I think I've said before, what people mean when they say leadership is making - making the right noises, affirming a particular set of views, convictions or even prejudices. It doesn't always have very much to do with how you make a difference. And I think the question I always find myself asking of myself is: will a pronouncement here or a statement there actually move things on, or is it something that makes me feel better and other people feel better, but doesn't necessary contribute very much?

AR: Can you give me an example of something where you have, where you have felt tempted to talk about something and come to that conclusion that you can achieve more by not to saying something.

AC: I think actually, over the religious hatred legislation. We had quite a lot of lobbyings you can imagine from people who wanted a firm lead, this is a piece of legislation that's dangerous to the church just as, of course, there's lobbying from other people. I thought it wasn't particularly useful to make loud noises about this, that it was probably more useful to listen to what different groups had to say, transmit what could be transmitted to government, work at it in that way, and see if the dangers were real, and if they were, how you - how you got around them, what sort of drafting would be desirable. So that - that was an area where I deliberately decided to take a fairly low key. I think where we've ended up actually, is - is a reasonable enough placement.

AR: But can you understand why the man from the Daily Mail almost fell off his chair?

AC: Mmm. Yes, I can. I think there is a bit of a picture of it, of a myth if you like, that Religious Leaders - capital R capital L - are, by their nature, people who make public pronouncements of morals. Now, there's a sense in which every religious leader, and one can understand that, is in a position of making public pronouncements, they're going to be someone with a teaching responsibility. The church, from time to time, they try and crystallise what the church looks or believes. The difficulty in this country I think, possibly elsewhere, I don't know, is that there's a bit of an expectation that you do this for everybody. Whether or not anybody agrees with you, or changes as a result, it's somehow satisfying to have somebody making that sort of public statement. And I'm just a bit wary of the possible seductions of being drawn into the drama of that, if it doesn't actually change things, if it is, say, just to make me feel better or other people feel better.

AR: You say the expectation you are saying this for everybody, do you mean everybody in the country or everybody in the church?

AC: Everybody in the country. Yeah. What I mean I think is that why doesn't the Archbishop condemn X, Y, Z? Because that's what Archbishops do, you know, they condemn things, they - they make statements usually negative or condemnatory statements. And I - I just wonder a bit whether, you know, when an Archbishop condemns something, suddenly in, I don't know, the bedsits of north London, somebody may say oh, I shouldn't be having pre-marital sex, or in the cells of Al-Qaida, somebody says, goodness, terrorism's wrong, the Archbishop says so. I never thought of that. I'm not sure that's, you know, that's how it is. But when I was in South Africa 20 years ago, I remember talking to somebody about - somebody who was very much involved in the struggle in South Africa, about what the church should or shouldn't be saying about violence, the struggle about apartheid, and he said, I'm not by any means saying the church should be condoning violence, I am saying that a lot of people have made - made their decisions before the church steps in, and you've got to be very careful about just making empty noises. It's not as if people are waiting for the church to say something before they make up their minds. A lot of the time it's more that the church has to work with decisions people have made. And I've never forgotten that. It was - it came from a very serious situation where I think people were just being rightly wary of making noises for the sake of it.

[Companion]

Two useful links that I would like to share: One (http://www.christianhospitality.org/pages_20items/first_church_rome.htm) and Two (http://www.christianhospitality.org/pages_20items/Ap6.htm)

[Wiffey]

St. Peter founded the see of Antioch prior to going to Rome. So the Patriarch of Antioch is also a successor to St. Peter. I think Rome has a different take on what this means...the Patriarch of Antioch who is also an heir of Peter is clear about all Bishops being equal heirs of Peter.

FWIW, the focus on Rome as first among equals sprung from the fact that Christianity emerged within the context of the Roman Empire, and folks equated Rome with a central authority. Until the Great Schism, all understood that while the Bishop of Rome had a primacy of honor, all Bishops were equal and no one Bishop had the authority to overstep his own jurisdiction or to change dogmas without an Ecumenical Council.

At the time of the Schism, there were 5 Patriarchs: Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Rome & Alexandria. The Schism came about when the Bishop of Rome sought to overreach his traditional role and exert authority over his fellow Patriarchs, and adopted the filioque, a change to the Creed itself without consulting his fellow Patriarchs & Bishops within an Ecumenical Council. Whether one agrees with the Filioque addition or not, the larger issue was that at the time, Tradition was that no one individual had the authority to make changes to the Faith. Any such change had to be made within the context of a Council of all the Bishops.

You can find out more about this by asking about it on the EO forum...

But generally folks will give a primacy of honor to Rome (without approving of the changes that Rome has instituted, like Papal infallibility, etc). But this idea of a centralized authority with all the power resting on one person...that is a Roman invention that was never part of the faith during the first 1000 years of the Church.

[karen freeinchristman]

To be totally honest, I do not understand why we 'give primacy of honor' to Rome, or refer to the Pope as the 'first among equals'. Just because it has been an historic tradition to do so, doesn't mean this is what we should carry on doing.

[Companion]

To be totally honest, I do not understand why we 'give primacy of honor' to Rome, or refer to the Pope as the 'first among equals'. Just because it has been an historic tradition to do so, doesn't mean this is what we should carry on doing.

I agree. In my opinion it is a tradition but not a historical one. Facts show otherwise.

[Wiffey]

Among the EO the title of "First among Equals" comes with this caveat: if the Pope returns to Orthodoxy, he will have the place of honor "first among equals", that he had prior to the schism. FWIW, noone in the EO is looking to the Pope as a leader because they feel he lost his status when he started changing dogmas and (in their view) left the canonical Church.

An interesting side note: at the time of the Schism there were 5 Patriarchs. When the Bishop of Rome split, none of the others agreed with him or left with him. So the view was (and is still among EO) that the Pope left the Church. The other 4 Patriarchs just settled in and continued to do things as they had always been done, with no alterations in Tradition.

So I think the whole "first among equals" thing should be dependent on the Pope renouncing Papal Infallibility, etc.

[Wiffey]

I know about the EO view of this whole issue, but haven't been a part of the AC long enough to develop a good understanding of the historical Anglican viewpoint on this. That is, if there was indeed one singular historic viewpoint WRT the RC in our very diverse Communion!

[Companion]

Generally, Anglicans don't accept his primacy. Especially evangelicals are very much clear on this. Some 'high' church followers do accept his traditional role as first among equals but some Anglo-Catholics take a step further and somehow acknowledge his authority over the worldwide church although not in communion with Rome.

My opinion is to hold on what Holy Scriptures and primitive Apostolic Tradition say. He is just the bishop of the old imperial city and by no means infallible or the vicar of Christ on Earth. We must also be concerned of the many errors and false teachings of the RC Church.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

The Pope is the successor of S. Peter and the Vicar of Christ. *goes to hide now*

[Companion]

The Pope is the successor of S. Peter and the Vicar of Christ. *goes to hide now*

Yep.....you better hide! :D :D :D

[karen freeinchristman]

The Pope is the successor of S. Peter and the Vicar of Christ. *goes to hide now*

We are all allowed to voice our view! This is one of the great freedoms we have in the Anglican Church! :clap:

[SeenAndUnseen]

The Pope is the successor of S. Peter and the Vicar of Christ. *goes to hide now*

:hug:

[Polycarp1]

Apropos this discussion, I'm reminded of a possibly-apocryphal funny story: There was an Episcopal Church Bishop of Fort Worth whose surname was "Pope" and who converted to Roman Catholicism, deconverted, and then returned, producing a series of humorous headlines in the local newspaper: "Pope Turns Catholic"; "Pope Leaves Catholic Church"; "Pope Returns to Catholicism"I think the proper Anglican standard is somewhat akin to the Orthodox: all Bishops are equal, save for guidance from national synods (including ECUSA's General Convention, etc.) and instances where an Archbishop has some authority over the bishops in his province. The five historical patriarchates would deserve a special place of honor and guidance among this equality of episcopates, as they have in Orthodoxy, if any of them were in communion with us. Of those five, the Patriarch of the West, at Rome, is first among equals and the Ecumenical Patriarch, at Constantinople, second. But the Pope does not himself have any authority over Anglicanism, and would not unless each member church of the Anglican Communion chose to subject itself to his authority, which I do not see ever happening. In any case, the question is moot, as neither Roman Catholicism nor Eastern Orthodoxy chooses to be in communion with us. (Remember that they excommunicated us; they are welcome at our altars. If Benedict XVI chose to celebrate Eucharist at the National Cathedral, he'd be welcomed there.)

[karen freeinchristman]

Of those five, the Patriarch of the West, at Rome, is first among equals


Why?

[Naomi4Christ]

Generally, Anglicans don't accept his primacy. Especially evangelicals are very much clear on this.

The Pope has no hold over us. Of course, as a bishop of a different diocese and as a head of state, he commands a certain amount of respect.

We do not view his opinions as having any superiority over what any other churchman or theologian holds. Good job when you think of all the wacky things that have come out of the Vatican over the years.

[SeenAndUnseen]

We do not view his opinions as having any superiority over what any other churchman or theologian holds. Good job when you think of all the wacky things that have come out of the Vatican over the years.

And that is entirely your opinion, of course. Let's not get started on wacky pronouncements in various churches, because there would be far more to find in the Anglican church than at the Vatican.

[Naomi4Christ]

Let's not get started on wacky pronouncements in various churches, because there would be far more to find in the Anglican church than at the Vatican.

Really?

[Torah613]

Apropos this discussion, I'm reminded of a possibly-apocryphal funny story: There was an Episcopal Church Bishop of Fort Worth whose surname was "Pope" and who converted to Roman Catholicism, deconverted, and then returned, producing a series of humorous headlines in the local newspaper: "Pope Turns Catholic"; "Pope Leaves Catholic Church"; "Pope Returns to Catholicism"I think the proper Anglican standard is somewhat akin to the Orthodox: all Bishops are equal, save for guidance from national synods (including ECUSA's General Convention, etc.) and instances where an Archbishop has some authority over the bishops in his province. The five historical patriarchates would deserve a special place of honor and guidance among this equality of episcopates, as they have in Orthodoxy, if any of them were in communion with us. Of those five, the Patriarch of the West, at Rome, is first among equals and the Ecumenical Patriarch, at Constantinople, second. But the Pope does not himself have any authority over Anglicanism, and would not unless each member church of the Anglican Communion chose to subject itself to his authority, which I do not see ever happening. In any case, the question is moot, as neither Roman Catholicism nor Eastern Orthodoxy chooses to be in communion with us. (Remember that they excommunicated us; they are welcome at our altars. If Benedict XVI chose to celebrate Eucharist at the National Cathedral, he'd be welcomed there.)

I do not recall the AC being excommunicated by the Eastern Orthodox. I do not think it would even fall within the canonical power of the EO to do so, as the Anglicans never broke from us (except when Rome broke, and therefore you could say that the Anglicans shared in the excommunication of Rome but the Excommunications were actually personal against the reigning Pope, Patriarch and Emperor--not regarding the churches as a whole).

An interesting picture I thought I would share follows:

http://geocities.com/joe_zollars/meletios_lang.jpg

It is interesting to note that in the view of many the above Ecumenical Patriarch is considered the "Great Satan" in the view of some EOs as he was the one that instituted the greek council that determined to allow pews, organs, and a modified Gregorian Calander in the Americas.

I also find it interesting to note in that picture, or maybe I am just seeing things, that Cantaur is wearing the medallion of the Theotokos generally worn by EO Bishops.

Then of course there are the pictures of St. Tikhon the New Martyr in full choir dress at teh consecration of the Bishop of Fond du Lac back when he was the chief Heirarch in America.

Of course one could also point out that Ms. Hapgood, a lifelong Episcopalean, is the one that translated all our service books into English for use in the Americas (we generally still use these translations). But then again that might be going over the top.

My point in all this, is that the Anglican Communion has not been activly and specifically excommunicated by the Eastern Orthodox Church (and even if the general Anathama's and Excommunications were applied to the Anglican Communion they were lifted over thirty years ago). Among Orthodox you will find a wide variety of opinions on the Anglican Communion ranging from some who say it is a graceless heretical sect to those of us who claim it is the same as the Eastern Orthodox Church only in western form (and not having endured the persecutions of the last two centuries that the Eastern and Southern European churches have at the hands of the Turks and Bolsheviks).

Joe Zollars

[Torah613]

And that is entirely your opinion, of course. Let's not get started on wacky pronouncements in various churches, because there would be far more to find in the Anglican church than at the Vatican.

We've all got our wackos. personally I'm glad I don't necessarily have to claim the teachings of the crazed Old Calandrists (not discounting the legitimate ones who still represent and hold the spirit of Orthodoxy).

One of hte great things I love that is to some degree parallel between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism is that the belief structure is not as rigid. We have the creeds and Councils to teach us the parameters of our faith, but in some things a variety of opinions are allowable.

Joe Zollars

[Chrystabelle]

Thank you all for your replies. I must look into all this further. It is all very interesting.

Apart from declaring papal infallibility, what other errant dogmas were there?

[Fish and Bread]

Thank you all for your replies. I must look into all this further. It is all very interesting.

Apart from declaring papal infallibility, what other errant dogmas were there?

Picture the Anglican Communion as a gigantic alliance of Christians who have all agreed to submit themselves to the same bishops and diocesean structure with the same historic order of bishops, priests, and deacons and a common heritage centered upon scripture, reason, and tradition and the Book of Common Prayer and a common structure in terms all practicing infant baptisms, confirmations, etc. There are no universal doctrines and dogmas, other than Mere Christianity.

So, consequentially, one will find Anglicans who are essentially Roman Catholics who think the Pope has made too much of a power grab, and who will affirm things like the immaculate conception if Mary, the assumption of Mary, transubstantiation, prayer to Saints, etc. Those Anglicans are essentially Roman Catholics without a Pope. Sometimes they're considered "more Catholic than the Catholics" -- I once went to a mass at a parish with a backfacing altar, the gloria, the santus, and the our father in latin, a chanted mass with a chanted gospel, billowing clouds of incense, prayers for the Bishop of Rome during the Prayers of the Pople, etc..

Also, though, one will find a lot of folks who are essentially Lutherans or Methodists in their beliefs; who don't prayer to Saints, don't believe in Marian dogma, are mostly sola scripture, have less ornate liturgies at times, etc..

Then, the third major category of Anglicans are the liberals, who take a fairly non-literal view of tradition and scripture and affirm women priests, homosexual marriage, and those sort of things. This group is gaining a lot of momentum in the United States lately.

The majority of Anglicans are actually a mix of these three categories. For example, I was once a member of an Episcopalian (The US branch of the Anglican Communion) parish with a priest who was a fairly conservative Lutheran type that had very traditional views that fell into a Lutheran mold, but believed strongly in the communion of Saints and personal holiness and had some neo-Eastern Orthodox beliefs, and also favored women priests (His one liberal view). That's about par for the course. Most Anglicans are not wholly one way or another, though if you look carefully, you can certain find parishes and individuals who are.

Most Anglicans affirm birth control and stuff like that as choices that are up to the people involved.

[Naomi4Christ]

Also, though, one will find a lot of folks who are essentially Lutherans or Methodists in their beliefs; who don't prayer to Saints, don't believe in Marian dogma, are mostly sola scripture, etc..., and have less formal liturgies at times.


Why do we have to be essentially something else? Can't we just be Anglican? Maybe it's the Methodists who are like us...

[Fish and Bread]

Why do we have to be essentially something else? Can't we just be Anglican? Maybe it's the Methodists who are like us...

You may be right, but if I had replied that Anglicans are like Anglicans, that probably wouldn't have helped the person asking the question very much. :) Alternately, a detailed description of what each group believes would have taken many pages. It's easier just to say the Anglican Communion has some Roman Catholic types and some Lutheran types and some Methodist types and some some really liberal types, etc.. That way people who know the basics of each religion have an easy frame of reference.

[Naomi4Christ]

In England, the main faith group is Anglican. That means that the Roman Catholics are like the Anglo-Catholics, and the Methodists, Baptists, and United Church like Evangelicals. Lutherans don't really figure at all.

Let's try to be secure in our own faith and not always look over one shoulder or the other for validation.

[Torah613]

I don't think that was quite the point. It has to do with cultural frames of reference. The person asking the question appears to be an American. While the Episcopal church is fairly common in the United States, very few really understand it as generally its not a big newsmaker.

Everyone in America knows what the Methodists (more common at least historically than the Anglican Church) and Roman Catholics believe in and stand for. Therefore they became an easy frame of reference for description.

Furthermore, if hte original poster knew all there was to know about the internal workings of Anglicanism, they wouldn't have asked the question to begin with. Some description was in order, but you can't really describe properly a monet painting to a blind man* in terms of the monet painting itself.

*Certainly no offense intended to the original poster.

Joe Zollars

[SeenAndUnseen]

The problem with being secure in "our own faith" and not looking to other groups for validation lies in our non-existent faith definition. It's lovely to say "our own faith", but what exactly is that anyways? Nobody knows! It depends on who you ask! And since we have no doctrines it is hard to describe without using terms of other faiths. Most people have no earthly idea what an Anglican or an Episcopalian even is, so you have to say things like "well, we are sort of like Protestants, but also like Catholics."

[svdbygrace]

Why do we have to be essentially something else? Can't we just be Anglican? Maybe it's the Methodists who are like us...

:idea: That could be it! :thumbsup: :D :amen:

[john23237]

Let's try to be secure in our own faith and not always look over one shoulder or the other for validation.

Now THERE is a thought.:amen:

[Chrystabelle]

Furthermore, if hte original poster knew all there was to know about the internal workings of Anglicanism, they wouldn't have asked the question to begin with. Some description was in order, but you can't really describe properly a monet painting to a blind man* in terms of the monet painting itself.

*Certainly no offense intended to the original poster.

Joe Zollars

No offence taken. I want to see the Anglican church through your eyes. I was raised a Roman Catholic and so I mainly have their distorted perspective on the Anglican church. (Plus what I see on the television when I watch The Vicar of Dibley. But that maybe as stereotyped and unrealistic as Fr Ted.)

[ContraMundum]

To the poster of the OP- Even if St Peter was the bishop of Rome, how on earth would that make sacraments valid or invalid? That's the question you should be thinking about.

Given that Rome allows for valid sacramental activity outside of its clergy and even by laypersons (regarding baptism) isn't it obvious that the real presence would not rely on whether or not you are in communion with the successor of Peter or not but whether or not God is with you?

Anyway- the Popes have erred, and erred badly. There is no such thing as either Papal infallibility or Supremacy.

I'm more than happy to discuss those issues.

[higgs2]

The problem with being secure in "our own faith" and not looking to other groups for validation lies in our non-existent faith definition. It's lovely to say "our own faith", but what exactly is that anyways? Nobody knows! It depends on who you ask! And since we have no doctrines it is hard to describe without using terms of other faiths. Most people have no earthly idea what an Anglican or an Episcopalian even is, so you have to say things like "well, we are sort of like Protestants, but also like Catholics."
We have the BCP. And the nicene creed. I don't feel insecure in my faith.

[higgs2]

What were the Pope's errant claims?

ABC = The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams? Doesn't he doubt certain things? He does not seem to be a very strong leader. Archbishop Runcie and Archbishop Carey were much more firm in their faith. Does ABC, Rowan Williams' shaky beliefs make Anglicans feel insecure about their church?




A very good point. I will have to look into that. Thank you.
Shakey beliefs? That's a big claim to make, can you support it?

[Companion]

With all due respect, I don't see any shakey beliefs in Dr. Williams. He is a good Archbishop and a great pastor.

[Chrystabelle]

Shakey beliefs? That's a big claim to make, can you support it?

I'm sorry if I am wrong. My perception is only what I get from my RC family and from the media. The following article suggests what I said in my previous post. I am truly sorry if I have misjudged Dr Williams. I am here to learn. I am seriously interested in joining the Anglican church and am just trying to dispel any doubts which my family try to put into my mind.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/01/02/do0201.xml

[Companion]

I'm sorry if I am wrong. My perception is only what I get from my RC family and from the media. The following article suggests what I said in my previous post. I am truly sorry if I have misjudged Dr Williams. I am here to learn. I am seriously interested in joining the Anglican church and am just trying to dispel any doubts which my family try to put into my mind.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/01/02/do0201.xml

That's a wonderful article indeed but I don't think it suggest any shakey beliefs.....quite the opposite in fact. Dr. Williams struggles to explain the mystery of God's providence in contrast to what we call reality. I like the following words from the article: The extraordinary fact is that belief has survived such tests again and again – not because it comforts or explains but because believers cannot deny what has been shown or given to them. They have learned to see the world and life in the world as a freely given gift; they have learned to be open to a calling or invitation from outside their own resources, a calling to accept God's mercy for themselves and make it real for others; they have learned that there is some reality to which they can only relate in amazement and silence. These convictions are terribly assaulted by all those other facts of human experience that seem to point to a completely arbitrary world, but people still feel bound to them, not for comfort or ease, but because they have imposed themselves on the shape of a life and the habits of a heart.


Thank you for the link. So nice....and nothing to be sorry about :)

[SirTimothy]

With all due respect, I don't see any shakey beliefs in Dr. Williams. He is a good Archbishop and a great pastor.

He also seems distinctly more intelligent than +Carey or +Runcie, or is that just me? Our last priest said the biggest problem with Dr. Williams is not that he believes anything wrong, but that he means exactly what he says, just it takes a lot of effort to actually understand what he says, so it's easier just to say that he's being wishy-washy and hiding behind long words and expressions.

Timothy

[Companion]

He also seems distinctly more intelligent than +Carey or +Runcie, or is that just me? Our last priest said the biggest problem with Dr. Williams is not that he believes anything wrong, but that he means exactly what he says, just it takes a lot of effort to actually understand what he says, so it's easier just to say that he's being wishy-washy and hiding behind long words and expressions.

Timothy

More 'straight' than +Carey or +Runchie I would say.

[SirTimothy]

Certainly. Most Christians seem to be dishonest with themselves, in my experience. We all want to sound so good that we end up lying to ourselves and to the people around us. We're saying exactly what the Bible says... but do we really 100% understand or believe it at times? This is something which has impacted on me lately--I have a lot of 'trite' answers I can give about my faith. A lot of certainty... but I must make sure that when I say something about God, I really mean it, not just because it's what I've been taught to say. I think this is what we find with the ABC... he doesn't give trite answers about the faith, rather he explains his personal faith.

Timothy

[Companion]

Certainly. Most Christians seem to be dishonest with themselves, in my experience. We all want to sound so good that we end up lying to ourselves and to the people around us. We're saying exactly what the Bible says... but do we really 100% understand or believe it at times? This is something which has impacted on me lately--I have a lot of 'trite' answers I can give about my faith. A lot of certainty... but I must make sure that when I say something about God, I really mean it, not just because it's what I've been taught to say. I think this is what we find with the ABC... he doesn't give trite answers about the faith, rather he explains his personal faith.

Timothy

Exactly. Usually the ABC would try to keep a balance between the various streams. As far I remember, no ABC has been more straight and honest than Dr. Williams. The believers in Wales loved him and he always enjoyed a good reputation among Christians of other denominations. We are blessed to have such a primate.

[Chrystabelle]

Thank you all for helping me to know and understand Dr Williams more fully. :)
He sounds like a very good and intelligent man.

[AngCath]

Benedict is the successor of St. Peter as the Bishop of the See of Rome just as Shenouda III is the successor of St. Mark at the See of Alexandria and right down the line of other episcopacies.

[Companion]

Benedict is the successor of St. Peter as the Bishop of the See of Rome just as Shenouda III is the successor of St. Mark at the See of Alexandria and right down the line of other episcopacies.

Can you provide reliable historical evidence of the pope being the successor of St. Peter? Are there any evidence that St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome whatsoever? I would appreciate facts recorded within the first two centuries AD if possible. Apostolic fathers very much welcome. Thank you :)

[gtsecc]

Can you provide reliable historical evidence of the pope being the successor of St. Peter? Are there any evidence that St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome whatsoever? I would appreciate facts recorded within the first two centuries AD if possible. Apostolic fathers very much welcome. Thank you :)
Do you mean was James really the leader or do you mean was Peter ever over the See in Rome? We know he was over the See in Constantinopal - no one questions that.

Generally we talk about Peter as an Apostile, and Linus as first Bishop of Rome, then Cletus, Clement, etc...
All these names of the succession of the Bishop of Rome are in the Gregorian Canon used in England for over 1,000 years.

[Companion]

Do you mean was James really the leader or do you mean was Peter ever over the See in Rome? We know he was over the See in Constantinopal - no one questions that.

Generally we talk about Peter as an Apostile, and Linus as first Bishop of Rome, then Cletus, Clement, etc...
All these names of the succession of the Bishop of Rome are in the Gregorian Canon used in England for over 1,000 years.

Neither my friend. I only say that Peter was never the bishop of Rome and we can prove it. I don't see the connection with Constantinople btw...please explain. The Gregorian Canon or any Canon does not substitute history. I'm simply asking for historical references and not theological opinions. :)

[gtsecc]

Neither my friend. I only say that Peter was never the bishop of Rome and we can prove it. I don't see the connection with Constantinople btw...please explain. The Gregorian Canon or any Canon does not substitute history. I'm simply asking for historical references and not theological opinions. :)
Well, the undivided church accepted him as having some sort of Primacy for hundreds of years.
You can debate what the extent of that primacy was, but not really that he had it or not. Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox already accept this primacy, so I can't think of a reason to undo it. What exactly are you getting at?

[gtsecc]

I don't see the connection with Constantinople btw...please explain.
As far as I know, no one disputes that he was head of the Church there.
You can quibble about whether he was Bishop or Apostle thereby making his succesor the first Bishop.

[Companion]

As far as I know, no one disputes that he was head of the Church there.
You can quibble about whether he was Bishop or Apostle thereby making his succesor the first Bishop.

Forgive me but I'm a bit lost.....who was head of the Church in Constantinople? If you mean Peter, then I would say that all scholars disagree as the apostle there was Andrew. Maybe some Orthodox brothers can help us here. Allow me also to extend my thoughts: In fact, Peter was neither the founder of the Church in Rome neither its bishop. Some ancient traditions clearly underline that he never visited Rome -the city- at all. Please give me a couple of days to put together some links and feel free to correct me if wrong.

:)

[Philip]

Forgive me but I'm a bit lost.....who was head of the Church in Constantinople? If you mean Peter, then I would say that all scholars disagree as the apostle there was Andrew.

This is correct. The Church of Byzantium was founded by St Andrew the First-Called.

Allow me also to extend my thoughts: In fact, Peter was neither the founder of the Church in Rome neither its bishop.


I would agree with this.

Some ancient traditions clearly underline that he never visited Rome -the city- at all.

I would disagree with this. St Peter was martyred in Rome.

[Companion]

This is correct. The Church of Byzantium was founded by St Andrew the First-Called.



I would agree with this.



I would disagree with this. St Peter was martyred in Rome.

Thanks for your contribution Philip. Although it seems that noone disputes the official version of St. Peter's martyrdom in Rome, some traditions and ancient writers place it somewhere in southern Italy while very few others, in Asia Minor. As I promised, I will find the details and come back on the issue.

[Philip]

My understanding is that St Peter worked in Jerusalem, then Antioch (and possibly into Asia Minor), then back to Jerusalem. After that, it gets sketchy until his martyrdom. The earliest reference to St Peter being in Rome is in the writings of St Irenaeus. However, I don't recall Irenaeus listing Peter as bishop of Rome. Rather, he says that Peter watered the church with his blood, or something to that effect.

[Gnisios]

My understanding is that St Peter worked in Jerusalem, then Antioch (and possibly into Asia Minor), then back to Jerusalem. After that, it gets sketchy until his martyrdom. The earliest reference to St Peter being in Rome is in the writings of St Irenaeus. However, I don't recall Irenaeus listing Peter as bishop of Rome. Rather, he says that Peter watered the church with his blood, or something to that effect.

Well said brother! Of what I have read, St. Peter was arrested in Asia Minor (some say Jerusalem) and was brought to Rome as prisoner where he was killed. Interesting to see how his Master predicted his end: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not

[Companion]

Well said brother! Of what I have read, St. Peter was arrested in Asia Minor (some say Jerusalem) and was brought to Rome as prisoner where he was killed. Interesting to see how his Master predicted his end: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not

Never thought of that. The testimony of Jesus is preety much a good evidence of what would happen to Peter. Thank you gnisios :)

[gtsecc]

ooops, I ment Peter was undisputely in Jerusalem.