There you go!
The Right Reverend Robert Forsythe, Orthodox Anglican Bishop of South Sydney, has a rather cogent response to Pope Benedict's opinion that other Christian churches have "defects."
"What else would you expect a Roman Catholic to say?" Bishop Forsyth says. "I happen to think the same about his church."
As does this Lutheran.
Common sense, really. It is only in this psychotic modern age that it could be imagined that any denomination could regard any other denomination whose teachings differ in any respect from its own as anything but ... well, defective!
"What else would you expect a Roman Catholic to say?" Bishop Forsyth says. "I happen to think the same about his church."
As does this Lutheran.
Common sense, really. It is only in this psychotic modern age that it could be imagined that any denomination could regard any other denomination whose teachings differ in any respect from its own as anything but ... well, defective!
Comments
The other day I came across a statement over at Scrappleface to the effect that even many Protestant scholars admit that Jesus made Peter the first Pope in Matthew 16.
As I pointed out, there is a word for Protestants who believe that. They're called "Catholics."
Depends how one defines "pope," doesn't it? One could say that Peter was given by Christ a special status among the Apostles--special mention, a first-among-equals position, etc.--but not the sort of all-encompassing monarchical authority claimed by the Roman pontiffs in the Middle Ages and since.
"Pope" is a title referring to a preeminent patriarch, the archbishop or metropolitan of an especially important see. I believe that there are currently three archbishops who use the title; one of them is the head of the Coptic church.
It appeared more or less the same time as the monarchial episcopate which is fundamental to the entire Roman ecclesiology (and for that matter, the Eastern Orthodox and Anglican ecclesiologies as well)- some time in the Second Century.
To to call Peter a "pope" in any sense would be to be involved in two anachronisms: first, making Peter a monarchial bishop, and second, making him the bishop of an especially important see. Since the historical evidence that Peter was ever bishop of Rome is practically non-existent, there just isn't any sense in which the word can be appropriately applied to him.