Peter Is Not The Rock!

[MoNiCa4316]

The Baptists and the Anglicans (I know my vicar at least) don't accept that grace is received through the Eucharist. Grace is received when we received Jesus and appropriated that once-for-all sacrifice on the cross.

CS Lewis was Anglican and he believed in the Sacraments.. I've never before heard of Anglicans talking about "accepting Christ"..I've always thought their approach is a lot like the Catholic/Orthodox approaches, not like the Evangelicals.

 

[narnia59]

Okay Beamishboy, here's what your cathechism says from the Anglican Commuion Official Website:

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/resources/acis/docs/cat1.cfm

The Baptists and the Anglicans (I know my vicar at least) don't accept that grace is received through the Eucharist. Grace is received when we received Jesus and appropriated that once-for-all sacrifice on the cross. I think you are confused with the pro-Rome faction of the Anglican church. You see, unfortunately, my church has people with Newman syndrome but unlike Newman who was honourable enough to leave the church and join Rome, some people remain in my church and express their Roman views. Your confusion is understandable.

What is the Holy Eucharist?
The Holy Eucharist is the sacrament commanded by Christ for the continual remembrance of his life, death, and resurrection, until his coming again.

Why is the Eucharist called a sacrifice?
Because the Eucharist, the Church's sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself.

By what other names is this service known?
The Holy Eucharist is called the lord's Supper, and Holy Communion; it is also known as the Divine Liturgy, the Mass, and the Great Offering.

What is the outward and visible sign in the Eucharist?
The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, given and received according to Christ's command.

What is the inward and spiritual grace given in the Eucharist?
The inward and spiritual grace given in the Holy Communion is the body and blood of Christ given to his people, and received by faith.

I would suggest you start a thread on the Eucharist with those points, especially those in 'red' and see how much agreement you get from other Protestants.

Are you aware how that is done in an Anglican church? The non-pro-Rome group that is. Ours isn't a requiem to shorten the years in purgatory. I think you mistake the CoE for the RC church.

Why do we remember the dead in prayer?
We remember them, because we still hold them in our love and because we trust that in God's presence those who have chosen to serve him will grow in his love, until they see him as he is.

Not to sure what you think Purgatory is, but can't say you're really that far away. You are certain completely removed from other Protestant theology that says that there is no benefit for praying for the dead at all, and that is no 'growth' that will occur after death.

I was not aware that grace could be received through the sacraments. I don't think that is scriptural. Are you saying that it can be received through the sacraments as opposed to actual faith in Christ? That would be contrary to the Bible.

What are the sacraments?
The sacraments are outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace, given by Christ as sure and certain means by which we receive that grace.

By the way, Scripture says that grace is administered in many forms, we can bring grace to others through our prayers and our act of humbling ourself before God will bring us grace as well.

The Baptists don't make it a point to say the Creed but that's purely ritual. They accept the meaning behind the Nicene Creed the way my church interprets it.

I'll have to dig for this, but I've been told by more than one baptist that the creeds contain heresy. It's not 'tradition' -- they reject some of the fundamentals of the creeds.

 

[beamishboy]

CS Lewis was Anglican and he believed in the Sacraments.. I've never before heard of Anglicans talking about "accepting Christ"..I've always thought their approach is a lot like the Catholic/Orthodox approaches, not like the Evangelicals.

What do you mean by "CS Lewis ... believed in the Sacraments"? You have to be more precise. Now I'm convinced that most RCs don't know a thing about Anglicans. Perhaps the pro-Rome faction in our church have confused you guys.

Let me explain. I have spoken to many priests and prelates in my church. John Stott, the great theologian in my church, firmly believes and has written a great deal about accepting Christ as the only way to salvation. Another great theologian in my church is Leon Morris. This chappie is a real scholar. He too believes and has written on what you called the "evangelical approach".

You are totally wrong. That's not Anglicanism. I stand by the theologians of my church. Accept the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

I'm just looking for you to provide me with some Anglican theological documents that define this view.

The Thirty Nine Articles and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral can be considered foundations of Anglican doctrine. This is also a good summation of the development of Anglican doctrine. Of course, it is always useful to go straight to the source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Nine_Articles

 

[narnia59]

The Thirty Nine Articles and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral can be considered foundations of Anglican doctrine. This is also a good summation of the development of Anglican doctrine. Of course, it is always useful to go straight to the source.

Ah yes, I had forgotten that Anglicans view Scripture, tradition and reason as the cornerstones of the faith, not Scripture alone.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

Accept the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.

That is not and never has been the issue of debate and dissonance within the Christian community -- whatever it is that non-Catholics have told you of Catholic doctrine. The idea that Christ is not central, and that faith is not absolutely necessary and pivotal, as a part of Catholic theology is a myth. It's an artificial division often created to caste the opposition as something other than Christian, and therefore not worthy of much consideration as far as doctrine is concerned.

 

[Rick Otto]

If there was another ‘rock’ other than Peter being talked about anywhere in the vicinity of the statement, then I think we’d have to ask, exactly which ‘rock’ is meant by ‘this’ rock.

I assert there is, but that entire discussion is too predictable for me to want to indulge at this point.

But there’s only one ‘rock’ being discussed – Peter himself. Perhaps the usage of “This rock” is more emphatic and that is the reason for Christ’s choice of words.

I can't imagine how depersonalizing the pronoun adds emphasis.

It places more emphasis on Peter’s role as the rock rather than the person Peter (which would be in the case if he had said ‘you’). It places the emphasis on the established office instead of the person – consistent with how Catholics view the papacy.

Now I think maybe you have constructed a false dichotomy between his role & his person. After all, what is it about the person of Peter that qualifies him to be named "rock"? In other words, it is the quality of the person that fulfills the requirements for the role, so the need to shift emphasis is a manufactured need. I think the reason for manufacturing that need is "seperation anxiety" over Jesus' departure, and perhaps some "intimacy issues" regarding the Holy Spirit. I don't say this in derrogation because I don't think I'm a better person than you, I just think I'm experiencing a fullness of truth RCs don't. My sense of security in Christ is greater than my sense of security in any congregation. The body can function without arms & legs, but not without its head.

I do think this view from the Zondervan NIV Bible (not Catholic) is quite pertinent though, because it somewhat addresses the topic of emphasis you also brought up. “The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.”

I think it was more extremes of papal authority, not interpretations that motivated dissenting opinions.

I think I posted this quote up above from an Evangelical Bible commentary, but did you consider this part? “As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself.”

I find it more natural to embrace that type of paradox as they are intrinsic to Christian concepts like self-sacrifice being necessary for eternal life.

In terms of the analogy, no one is suggesting that Peter is a visible ‘king’. He is the visible ‘palace administrator’. Two completely different roles.

The model of the role after a king provides an incomplete
model.

And really? You think the family correlates to the body of Christ in only a limited sense?

Yeah. Who did Christ marry & who is that couple's offspring? The Church is His body, the Church is our mother, we are the Church, the Church id His bride, etc.,... all these analogies are valid, but only in a limited sense. They only correlate to the issues they address. Taken all together, they are in contradiction to each other on many points.

We consider the family to be the ‘domestic church’.

1666 The Christian home is the place where children receive the first proclamation of the faith. For this reason the family home is rightly called "the domestic church," a community of grace and prayer, a school of human virtues and of Christian charity.

2204 "The Christian family constitutes a specific revelation and realization of ecclesial communion, and for this reason it can and should be called a domestic church." It is a community of faith, hope, and charity; it assumes singular importance in the Church, as is evident in the New Testament.

I don't have a problem with that superficialy, but in depth it begins to break down in the correlation of role fulfillments like in sanctifying, ordaining, infallibly pontificating, etc.

And consider this viewpoint regarding the ‘weakness’ of Peter from W.F. Albright in the Anchor Bible commentary. “To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre- eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles."

I don't argue that he wasn't "pre-eminent". I argue that his pre-eminance has been misconstrued & that his place as one of the foundation stones is being confused with the chief apostle & the cornerstone - Christ.

​

I would say we are quite defined by a physical blood relationship – united by the quite physical blood of Christ which covers us all.

That is a confusion of senses in my opinion. In the classical sense, we recieve our identity as family members by physicaly recieving the blood of our parents.
The Church isn't a family in that sense at all. It is a family in a spiritual sense. It is that sort of confusion of senses that allows the confusion of roles I perceive in RCism.


​

The same authority, with a noteworthy exception – no keys. Another reference from Albright -- . "It is of considerable importance, that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys."

If I remeber correctly, the keys are absent in all other discussions of the disciplinary affairs of the community.
The exact same authority being dispersed among the wider circle diminishes the significance of the symbolic keys in their singlular use. "Isolated incident" is the current vernacular.




Originally Posted by Rick Otto

It is ignored in the sense that you have presented the view of the papacy in terms of OT kingship, which wasn't a priestly position at all, and in the sense that God provided His own vicar - The Holy Spirit who requires no successor or apologetic (to believers) for infallability, nor apology for lack of impeccability.
​

I am not presenting the papacy in terms of the OT kingship.

I disagree. You have used kingship as the model for justifying the stewardship of a papacy & for the delegation of king powers to that steward.

The OT kings foreshadow the kingship of Christ. The correlation to the papacy and church authority in general is to how the king established the authority structure within his kingdom, especially in managing affairs in his absence. The papacy is presented in terms of the consistent reference to ‘one’ man who is charged with running the palace -- a palace administrator.

God provided The Holy Spirit & Jesus empowered at least 12 stewards, not one.

The sending of the Holy Spirit did not remove the apostolic teaching authority we see in the NT. Once a person receives the Holy Spirit, they did not become a peer to the apostles.

We become peers salvificaly and we all recieve the infallible teacher in the person of The Holy Spirit.

Originally Posted by Rick Otto

I can't assume it, brother. God advised against an earthly king for Isreal. That makes it doubtful that He would use one as a model for His organization.
​

The people of Israel rejected the authority God had placed over them, which God viewed as rejection of Himself. They basically had a case of “everybody else has a king – how can we not be important enough to have a king”. God used the opportunity to teach them a very valuable lesson – a bad king is much worse than no king.

I think the lesson was rather any king is worse than God as king.

But with the death of Saul, we see God establishing the kingship He desired for Israel in David, with a promise to David that his house and kingdom would endure forever before Him. This is why Christ was to come from the house of David – the continuity of the kingship beginning with David and fulfilled in Christ.

I don't think God desired a kingship for Israel other than His own. It was Israel that desired a king other than God and I see a correlation between desiring that visible leader & having all the attendant problems with the church desiring a visible leader & having very similar problems.

So yes, the foreshadowing of Christ’s kingdom we see beginning with David is important, especially when he makes clear references to it in terms of authority. The keys received by the one in charge of the palace in the Jewish kings are the foreshadowing of the kingdom of Christ, the church which manifests the kingdom, and the keys placed in the hands of Peter.

None of those kings dispersed the same steward's authority among a dozen others nor did any of those kings assign duties to anyone like The Holy Spirit.
I'm afraid your analogy is inadequate for me.
Thanks for sharing it so charitably, tho.

 

[beamishboy]

Okay Beamishboy, here's what your cathechism says from the Anglican Commuion Official Website:

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/resources/acis/docs/cat1.cfm


What is the Holy Eucharist?
The Holy Eucharist is the sacrament commanded by Christ for the continual remembrance of his life, death, and resurrection, until his coming again.

Why is the Eucharist called a sacrifice?
Because the Eucharist, the Church's sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself.

By what other names is this service known?
The Holy Eucharist is called the lord's Supper, and Holy Communion; it is also known as the Divine Liturgy, the Mass, and the Great Offering.

What is the outward and visible sign in the Eucharist?
The outward and visible sign in the Eucharist is bread and wine, given and received according to Christ's command.

What is the inward and spiritual grace given in the Eucharist?
The inward and spiritual grace given in the Holy Communion is the body and blood of Christ given to his people, and received by faith.

I would suggest you start a thread on the Eucharist with those points, especially those in 'red' and see how much agreement you get from other Protestants.





Why do we remember the dead in prayer?
We remember them, because we still hold them in our love and because we trust that in God's presence those who have chosen to serve him will grow in his love, until they see him as he is.

Not to sure what you think Purgatory is, but can't say you're really that far away. You are certain completely removed from other Protestant theology that says that there is no benefit for praying for the dead at all, and that is no 'growth' that will occur after death.



What are the sacraments?
The sacraments are outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace, given by Christ as sure and certain means by which we receive that grace.

By the way, Scripture says that grace is administered in many forms, we can bring grace to others through our prayers and our act of humbling ourself before God will bring us grace as well.



I'll have to dig for this, but I've been told by more than one baptist that the creeds contain heresy. It's not 'tradition' -- they reject some of the fundamentals of the creeds.

Ho Ho Ho!!! The beamishboy is so amused. hehe. You see, the Anglican church is highly fragmented. If you search hard enough, you will find (especially the Anglican church in America) something about gay marriages. But does that mean we believe in this rubbish? No!!!

The real Constitution in the Anglican church is the 39 Articles. The rest can be changed. The 39 Articles can't.

Let me show you what it says of purgatory:

Article XXII

Of Purgatory

The Romish doctrine concerning Pugatory, Pardons, worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saint, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God.

Did Monica say the Anglican church was closer to the RCs and Orthodox?

Let's look at the importance of General Councils:

Article XXI

Of the authority of General Councils

General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes. And when they be gathered together, forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and word of God, they may err and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining to God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.


Let's look at salvation and our justification. Is this too evangelical?

Article XI

Of the Justification of Man

We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

I can go on. Article 15 says only Christ is without sin. That will stop Marian theology from creeping in.

The Anglican church may change any of the rules but the one thing it can never change is the 39 Articles. Since the 39 Articles are always talking about the importance of Scriptures, essentially, we are governed only by Scriptures. That's as evangelically Protestant as you can get. That is why even if the Archbishop of Canterbury should come up with weird ideas, we can ignore him as the bishops did by refusing to attend Lambeth. We haven't got a Pope equivalent. I hope you guys understand this. You can quote Anglican writings from pro-Rome faction of the Church but all I have to do is to shake the 39 Articles in their faces, and they fall flat.

 

[beamishboy]

Ah yes, I had forgotten that Anglicans view Scripture, tradition and reason as the cornerstones of the faith, not Scripture alone.

Who told you that? The Pope? That's not what the 39 Articles say. Read this:

Article VI

Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scripture for Salvation

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

 

[beamishboy]

[/size]That is not and never has been the issue of debate and dissonance within the Christian community -- whatever it is that non-Catholics have told you of Catholic doctrine. The idea that Christ is not central, and that faith is not absolutely necessary and pivotal, as a part of Catholic theology is a myth. It's an artificial division often created to caste the opposition as something other than Christian, and therefore not worthy of much consideration as far as doctrine is concerned.

Just as you guys claim to know Anglicanism more than I and the 39 Articles, similarly I do know RCism more than you. To the best of my knowledge, the centrality of Christ is the farthest thing in the RC faith. To us, Christ is our only Redeemer. To RCs, Mary is the co-redeemer. I can go on with about a million other such points.

 

[beamishboy]

I hope that after you have seen what the 39 Articles say, you will erase all hope of a union between Canterbury and Rome. There will always be the pro-Rome faction in my church but we also have those who are true to the original Protestant reformation of England.

We just have to recognise that these are essentially two different religions and the twain shall never be one, by God's grace.

 

[AmericanCatholic]

To the best of my knowledge, the centrality of Christ is the farthest thing in the RC faith.

I must say, therefore, that were the "best of [your] knowledge" half as good as you claim, it'd be twice as relevant as it is. For example, if you were intimately familiar with Catholicism, you would not call the Catholic Church the "Roman Church" because you would know that "Roman" refers specifically to the Latin Rite, which is one of six rites -- the other five not being Roman in any sense. I have made no claim concerning the particulars of Anglican doctrine; I've only provided references for others to read for themselves. Though I do question your claim that the 39 Articles are not changeable, for the document is not official in all of the 44 churches of the Anglican Communion.

 

[narnia59]

Ho Ho Ho!!! The beamishboy is so amused. hehe. You see, the Anglican church is highly fragmented. If you search hard enough, you will find (especially the Anglican church in America) something about gay marriages. But does that mean we believe in this rubbish? No!!!

It wasn't too hard of a search since these are the beliefs expressed in the cathechism on the official Anglican communion web site. However, it does appear you believe your thoughts trump that.

But regarding the red, I can quite see your point about the Anglican church leaning much more towards the evangelical way.

 

[beamishboy]

It wasn't too hard of a search since these are the beliefs expressed in the cathechism on the official Anglican communion web site. However, it does appear you believe your thoughts trump that.

But regarding the red, I can quite see your point about the Anglican church leaning much more towards the evangelical way.

The Anglican church started out totally Protestant. England is the home of the Church of England and you probably know what we did to RCs in those days. Right up to the start of the last century, every monarch in England was required to insult the RC faith and to call it a superstition until 1910 when George V decided not to hurt his subjects who were RC. My school which is directly affiliated to King's College, Oxford did not admit RC students until the mid or late 19th century. The same applied to Oxford and Cambridge.

So we started out right - very Protestant. I meant the theology, not the discrimination against RCs which was wrong. But there are some in the Anglican church who want to be with Rome but they aren't honourable enough to leave the church and join Rome totally. So they stay in the church and agitate for more Romish things.

The same applies to some US Anglicans who are very pro-homosexuals. They want to have rubbish like gay marriages, etc.

So the pure Anglican church should be rid of its Roman and gay factions. That's the original Anglican church.

What someone said about the 39 Articles is not true. It's been debated before. The 39 Articles can never be changed. I don't know about outside England but they can't be changed in England which is all that matters because it's our State religion.

Even Tony Blair did not dare breathe a word about his defection to Rome until he had left office and was free to do as he pleased. And any monarch who turned RC or married an RC will be deposed. So, it's wrong to say that the CoE is very RC. It's the reverse.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by narnia59 Ah yes, I had forgotten that Anglicans view Scripture, tradition and reason as the cornerstones of the faith, not Scripture alone.

Then why are they considered Defective by the RCC

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7004034
What sets Catholics/Orthodox above Protestant churches?

Ezekiel 28: 13 in Eden, garden of Elohiym, thou became of every stone precious 17 Heart of thee is haughty in loveliness of thee, thou ruin wisdom of thee on shining of thee, on land I fling thee to faces of kings I give thee to see of in thee

Reve 18:11 And the merchants of the land are lamenting and are mourning over Her, because no one is not still buying their cargo 12 12 cargo of gold, and of silver, and of stone, precious, and of pearl, and of cambric,

 

[narnia59]

The Anglican church started out totally Protestant. England is the home of the Church of England and you probably know what we did to RCs in those days. Right up to the start of the last century, every monarch in England was required to insult the RC faith and to call it a superstition until 1910 when George V decided not to hurt his subjects who were RC. My school which is directly affiliated to King's College, Oxford did not admit RC students until the mid or late 19th century. The same applied to Oxford and Cambridge.

So we started out right - very Protestant. I meant the theology, not the discrimination against RCs which was wrong. But there are some in the Anglican church who want to be with Rome but they aren't honourable enough to leave the church and join Rome totally. So they stay in the church and agitate for more Romish things.

The same applies to some US Anglicans who are very pro-homosexuals. They want to have rubbish like gay marriages, etc.

So the pure Anglican church should be rid of its Roman and gay factions. That's the original Anglican church.

What someone said about the 39 Articles is not true. It's been debated before. The 39 Articles can never be changed. I don't know about outside England but they can't be changed in England which is all that matters because it's our State religion.

Even Tony Blair did not dare breathe a word about his defection to Rome until he had left office and was free to do as he pleased. And any monarch who turned RC or married an RC will be deposed. So, it's wrong to say that the CoE is very RC. It's the reverse.

Based on the red you're making a difficult case here that you really believe the discrimination against the Catholics "was" (past-tense) wrong, as opposed to "is" still quite operative and okay.

And to be frank, your comments about reaching a "pure" church by eliminating from its ranks those who disagree with you cause a chill.

Be that as it may, I have many Anglican/Episcopal friends whose view of their church is quite different, and in my view presents a much more accurate reflection of the body of Christ.

 

[narnia59]

Rick and sunlover, I've spent way more time on this already than I have, and it seems we're simply exchanging the same volleys over the net at this point. Unless there's something really specific you'd like me to respond to in your posts, I'm going to let it rest for a while.

Thanks for the dialogue.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Based on the red you're making a difficult case here that you really believe the discrimination against the Catholics "was" (past-tense) wrong, as opposed to "is" still quite operative and okay.

And to be frank, your comments about reaching a "pure" church by eliminating from its ranks those who disagree with you cause a chill.

Be that as it may, I have many Anglican/Episcopal friends whose view of their church is quite different, and in my view presents a much more accurate reflection of the body of Christ.

Then why do not the RCs become Anglican or Orthodox

Isaiah 28:17 But I will make--Justice the line, and Righteousness the plummet,--And the hail shall, sweep away, your refuge of lying, And your hiding-place, the waters shall overflow;

Reve 16:21 and hail, great as talent weight is descending out of the heaven upon the men and blaspheme the men, the God, out of the blow/plhghV <4127> of the hail, that great is the blow/plhgh <4127> of her, tremendous.

 

[beamishboy]

Based on the red you're making a difficult case here that you really believe the discrimination against the Catholics "was" (past-tense) wrong, as opposed to "is" still quite operative and okay.

And to be frank, your comments about reaching a "pure" church by eliminating from its ranks those who disagree with you cause a chill.

Be that as it may, I have many Anglican/Episcopal friends whose view of their church is quite different, and in my view presents a much more accurate reflection of the body of Christ.

I don't know what language is spoken in America but I can assure you that in my native language, "was" is perfectly legitimate. We say, "It was wrong of the French public to execute Louis XVI in the late 18th century" and this does not carry with it the implication that we think it is right to execute the king if he were to live today. I have not read any American grammar book on this but I find it hard to believe that English grammar in the US is that much different from what we have here in England. But then again, I have been to America and I must say I was quite flummoxed by some of their strange usage.

Your Anglican friends may very well be pro-Rome and it is only natural that you would consider them more "Christian". I perfectly understand that since to me, anything more Protestant and less Romish does appear more "Christian". Like I said, both our religions are poles apart and the sooner our churches realise that a union is totally out of the question, the better it is for all of us.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Your Anglican friends may very well be pro-Rome and it is only natural that you would consider them more "Christian". I perfectly understand that since to me, anything more Protestant and less Romish does appear more "Christian". Like I said, both our religions are poles apart and the sooner our churches realise that a union is totally out of the question, the better it is for all of us.

Sounds like the Kingdom of the RCs against the Kingdom of the Non-RCs

Matthew 12:25 Having known yet, the Jesus, their thoughts He said to them, "every kingdom being-divided against herself is desolated/erhmoutai <2049> (5743); and every City or House being-divided against herself not shall be standing":

Reve 18:17 That to one hour was desolated/hrhmwqh <2049> (5681) the so much riches. And every shipmaster and every the one on-place sailing, and mariners, and whoever the sea are working, from afar stand.