Jesus canonically handpicks St Peter to be the foundation stone on which he will build his church

PETER! PETER! PETER!

Handpicked by Jesus. Whoever oppose him oppose Jesus himself!

This illiterate jew was entrusted by Jesus to watch his sheep.

Paul? Hallucinationate fellow that never saw Jesus.

In the time of King Lard, catholicism was fine

But in the >present day, as you say
Vatican 2 happened

Yes, but not in rome, Peter was the bishop of Antioch

>the church of jesus' chosen right hand man ends up descending into idolatry, polytheism, moral degeneracy, and paganism
>its heretic followers throw a bitchfit when real christians see its degeneracy and leave to form their own churches pure of the corruption that plagues the catholic faith

The RCC was Blessed in tell 1962, when the Vatican was placed in the West side of the iron curtain and liberal subversion was inevitable. That's a pretty impressive track record.

>bible translated into Gothic in the 4th century
>bible translated into Syriac, Coptic, Old Nubian, Ethiopic and Georgian years later
>bible translated into Old High German, Old English, and Old Church Slavonic a few centuries after that

Then suddenly after the schism the Latin church makes owning a non Latin bible punishable by both excommunication and painful execution. Why would they do this? Because most catholic doctrines have no basis in scripture, and without the eastern church to hold back their corruption the patriarch of Rome's vanity knew no bounds.

The king of England was an opportunist but Romes legitimacy is an entirely separate issue.

>Then suddenly after the schism the Latin church makes owning a non Latin bible punishable by both excommunication and painful execution.
[citation needed]

Can an illiterate Jew became a bishop? Can an illiterate Jew astray from Jesus?

THEN WHY IN THE HELL DID JESUS PICK PETER TO TAKE CARE OF HIS SHEEP?

I always wondered this myself. How do Anglicans justify the fact that their denomination was founded by an adulterer? Catholicism is not perfect, but at least it wasn't balls to the wall hypocritical from the get go.

The ones who are devout enough to care don't know and the ones who know aren't devout enough to care.

>dissing indulgences

C'mon, indulge yourself.

Simon Magus, the sorceror, was a Babylonian priest. It was he who went to Rome, not Cephas (Simon Peter). Cephas never went to Rome. Simon Magus went to Rome and spread what became known as Christianity, poisoning Christ's teachings with Babylonian mystery religion tenets and rituals.

Yes, Jesus, GOD, doesn't know shit when he pick Peter.

Weak ass god if you ask me.

Seems pretty silly. Does the church have a long vetting period for their priests like the Catholic church does?

One of my family friends is Anglican but now proclaims himself a 'community preacher' on FB and qoutes random scripture all the time. Bloke is like 25.

Rome is Babylon. Mons Vaticanus is the Prophetic Anus, through which Satan spews his spiritual diarrhea

>mel gibson
laughed audibly

>implying the bishops of Rome are the direct inheritors of St Peter
>implying Jesus invested Peter with divine authority.

Heretics. Heretics everywhere.

also
>implying protestantism is the result of Henry VIII's break from the pope
The protestant reformation was started by Martin Luther. Protestant ideas were spreading in England long before Henry VIII decided to jump on the bandwagon. The fact that Mary failed completely in her effort to turn the country back to Catholicism shows that the spread of Protestantism was rooted in the people of England and not the monarchs. Also, the Church Henry founded wasn't even really Protestant. It was on odd mix of Protestantism and Catholicism - basically, Henry was fine with Catholic doctrine and worship practices, he just didn't like the part where the Pope was in charge. It wasn't until Edward VI that the Church of England became definitively Protestant, and it took Elizabeth I to actually decide exactly what sort of Protestantism it should be and how far it would break from the old faith.

bonus point:
>implying Henry VIII was wrong on the legal grounds of it.
Catherine of Aragon was the wife of Henry's older brother before he died, and so under biblical law should have been forbidden from marrying Henry. The passage isn't exactly unclear: "If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless" (although childless could be just as easily translated: "without sons"). After twenty years of marriage and a litany of miscarriages, still-births and infant deaths, with only a daughter to show for it (who would herself be barren due to uterine cancer), it's hard not to see Henry's point that god had cursed their marriage because it broke biblical law.

The fact that the Pope saw fit to break the law in the first place is exactly why Catholicism isn't really Christianity: if you take the Pope's word over the bible, you're not a Christian, you're a Papist.

>religion
>in 2017

canon and biblical law were at odds on the occasion. henry's case was legally weak actually. still, there was a political dimension to the pope's refusal because Catherine was Charles V's niece and had Pope Clement or Paul granted the divorce Charle's would have sperged out

>listening to the pope is Papism!
>l-l-listening to Martin Luther is different!

All you had to do was grant the divorce Clement.

Its literally all you had to do.

Is that why Martin Luther sided with the Lords that slaughtered the peasants that revolted for him?