Why Be Anglican? 

Lol! The Anglican Church does not stand in apostolic succession. Your priests are just as invalid as your priestesses. Join the True Church and stop having make-believe Masses.

How do you know that your priest has unbroken Apostolic Succession? If you are an Anglican, it is entirely possible that your priest has somewhere in his line of succession a female pseudobishop (i.e., a false bishop!) and therefore lacks Apostolic Succession.

@@AntoniusOhii I am not a Donatist. Pax.

@@AntoniusOhiiwell for a start, female bishops have only been appointed for 10 years so for now you can easily do the research. My diocese has just had a new bishop appointed, whose orders were given by the Archbishop of Canterbury. I grant that in some provinces (sadly including mine) this may get muddied in the near future but for now it’s safeish

The Church has authority over all.

St. Richard Hooker should be recognized as a Divine Doctor of the Church. Fr fr. I love Pusey as well. John Jewel, Lancelot Andrewes, and John Davenant should have notes in such a study Bible. Honestly... someone should compile one.

I’ve asked myself that same question before as well. To me it seems that there are 3 sacraments.

Lutherans consider absolution a big-S (dominical) Sacrament, though a lot of the time they present it more as a continuation of baptism rather than a separate sacrament.

​@@davidon1984I think the argument is that it is something Christ did, but not something Christ commanded us to receive. I firmly believe in seven sacraments, however.

Lutherans would say that it is not a sacrament in the strict sense because a physical substance is not constitutive of it like in baptism (water) or communion (bread and wine). But in a more loose sense some may call it the third sacrament.

I would say that pragmatic delay of baptism is a paedobaptist position categorically, but it is definitely not a traditional Anglican view.

If you have the opportunity and haven't done so yet, I would recommend checking out a local parish (if you have one)!

Thank you!

Catfinity, do you consider the Septuagintal text type family inerrant or the Masoretic text type family of Scripture inerrant? Because there is a huge differences between the two.

@@roddumlauf9241 First, the idea of a text-type being inerrant is absurd, because text-types are just manuscript traditions, and there is plenty of variance within the text-types. We should attempt to determine what the text read when in was originally disseminated. This includes edits made before its dissemination to Israel/the Church. (Moses wrote the Law, but Deuteronomy records his death and what happened soon after, so it was only finished after his death). It may be determined that one text-type is to be preferred over others as conforming most closely with the original, even to the extent of almost exclusively using it, but the text-type itself isn't inerrant. For this reason, the Hebrew text is the inerrant Scripture. The LXX is older than the Masoretic text and Dead Sea Scrolls and can be referenced when determining which readings should be preferred, but should not be given the same status as the Hebrew text.

@@roddumlauf9241 First, the idea of a text-type being inerrant is absurd, because text-types are just manuscript traditions, and there is plenty of variance within the text-types. We should attempt to determine what the text read when in was originally disseminated. This includes edits made before its dissemination to Israel/the Church. (Moses wrote the Law, but Deuteronomy records his death and what happened soon after, so it was only finished after his death). It may be determined that one text-type is to be preferred over others as conforming most closely with the original, even to the extent of almost exclusively using it, but the text-type itself isn't inerrant.

@@roddumlauf9241 For this reason, the Hebrew text is the inerrant Scripture. The LXX is older than the Masoretic text-type and Dead Sea Scrolls and can be referenced when determining which readings should be preferred, but should not be given the same status as a Hebrew text. It is debatable exactly how much importance should be given to it, but it should be used to determine what the Hebrew text originally disseminated said, not as the inerrant Scripture proper.

@@catfinity8799 So then why did St. Paul say the the Greek Old Testament was inspired and not the Hebrew pro-Masoretic ?? The Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Septuagint is based on a much older text than the Masoretic. So what you are saying is that the Orthodox have been using an errant Bible for more than 2,000 years. You are saying Augustine was wrong and Jerome was right.

I haven't! I'll be sure to check it out

Protesantism in whatever variety is nihilism.

@@SaltyPalamite Suit yourself, trad. But remember that traditional catholicism is a 'dead memory' and 'paganism of thought' according to your own pontiff :)

More Protestant traditions like Anglicanism? You want more priestesses, Pride masses, et cetera?

@@AntoniusOhii That's not what I meant

@@libatonvhs Those seem to be its fruits though.

You have to realize this is the same as people who say "there was a bad Pope once so your religion is invalid". And we don't even think that the King of England is infallible or anything. The bishops in England all stayed the same from before and after Henry VIII, and the current split between England and Rome isn't even from him because Mary I returned to Rome and then the Bishops and Elizabeth I separated again for theological reasons.

Absolutely brother!

You can't pray for fairies to be true.

@@koppite9600 fortunately I believe in Jesus Christ who is Yahweh. Not fairies

@@noahtylerpritchett2682 My comment was in regards to your erroneous belief in a pretend church. It seems to me you are in a position where there are two churches you wish would reconcile, there's only one church.

@@koppite9600 have you not heard of Anglican use and the Anglican ordinariate?

@@noahtylerpritchett2682 If you know of them, which reconciliation are you praying for? It means you believe in the only Church (as a man is to one spouse)

Non Anglicans can definitely still be Christian. Faith in Christ makes you a Christian

@@Young_Anglican So would they be like Christians without the church similar to Catholics view of separated breatheren? Just using that to help aid the understanding of the idea. One of my confusions and fears is to see someone like Mike Winger or Billy Graham saying they do not have the church so they are not Christian since as you pointed out you cannot have God without the church as mother; to the idea of they are not being faithful in thinking that the Lord's supper is memorial despite believing it has spiritual significance and are like if Noah just did not want to build the boat and thus have no faith. Those sections did not sound like what you said here, as if they had faith they would see it as the literal body and blood and participate in Anglicanism or any other church with a bishop that goes back to the apostles.

@@JesusRodriguez-gu1wv they have faith in Christ and the Church is the Body of Christ. They have wrong theology, but they can still be in the Church (capital C). I just don't think their ministers have an apostolic ministry and this often leads people into doctrinal error.

@Young_Anglican I see thanks for your patience from God and your video. I am struggling right now in my faith due to many reasons this being a branch of it. The one true church vs the more protestent outlook. But pray please that God not abandon me and lead me and pull me through repentance and faith and transformation.

@@JesusRodriguez-gu1wv of course brother! I will be praying for you

You can believe in the physical, true presence of His body and blood without believing in the theory of transubstantiation. See the Lutheran Confessions, especially the article in the Epitome to the Formula of Concord, for more details.

@@charless7653 Yea but are the proper words used for consecration? And were the Priests ordained by a Bishop with Apostolic succession? And keep in mind, I'm not talking about Anglican/Episcopal churches, I'm referring to Anglo-Catholics under the Anglican Province of America.

Lutherans also believe the elements are literally Christ's body and blood, they just take this in a more mystical sense and don't describe it in metaphysical terms like transubstantiation.

The fact that all apostolic traditions (Catholic ‘ west and east’, Eastern Orthodox, oriental orthodox and the church of East) all hold that the substance of bread and wine no longer exists but the substance of Christ body and blood are made present. Why should we believe reformational communities and abandon the faith?

@@gregorypizarro9403 The issue with the Orthodox is they don't hold biblical values in the same way the Anglo-Catholics do. Orthodox allow contraception and even divorce outside of the grounds of adultery.

Roman Catholics implicitly do the same thing with their view of the East.

What about the Acacian schism, when Rome and Constantinople broke communion with each other? Was one of them apostate for 35 years? We should seek unity in the Church, but that doesn't mean that we necessarily have it to such an extent that the Church is limited to one group.

I can’t speak for all Anglicans, and I see all Christians as being part of the same family. Just because one group decides to go their own way on an issue doesn’t make them any less my brothers and sisters. We have a distinction between catholic (small c) and Catholic (big C) to describe the difference between the universal church and the Roman Church, which I think you also may be conflating.

This is an aspect of Church History a lot of people overlook. The Acacian schism wasn't the only time the early church was split over issues. We have a tendency to look back at the ecumenical councils (now that the smoke has settled) and assume that church history went something like this: 1. United Church, 2. Heresy arises, 3: United Church holds council, 4. Everyone accepts it and moves on, leaving heretics in the dust. But that is not at all how it actually played out for really any of the councils. There were constant attempts at ecumenical councils, with the vast majority failing. Even the 7 that are widely recognized today were not immediately accepted, some took hundreds of years for the Roman and Eastern churches to accept respectively. Reception of these teachings took time. I think you probably have a good case with Augustine, schism with the singular institution was a big problem for him. But I am not sure the earlier fathers were in the same company. Councils came about to unite churches that were functioning largely independently via their own bishops. Local councils were much more relevant to regional churches than the rare ecumenical ones. Athanasius argued we never needed another council after Nicea, actually. The Ecumenical Councils only came about to put out huge fires. So I think Anglicans would simply say that. They never stopped doing what they've always done. The Catholic Church was always muddied by new heresies, attempted ecumenical councils, and large periods of disagreement - just as it is today.

@@AB-dw2op I’m not under Rome, so I would be happy to say that the Acacian schism did not mean one of the Sees was apostate since both were in communion with other Sees which where in communion. There was not a complete break is communion, like Moscow and Constantinople are both in communion with Jerusalem right now. I agree with your point that EC are messy and their implementation is not immediate. Nonetheless, eventually Rome was completely out of communion with the Orthodox, just as the Monophysites and the Nestorians before them. Still, the Anglicans are completely out of communion with Rome and the Orthodox, so there is a complete break in schism. This means that they are two separate communions. How can we say the Body of Christ is not divided if there are multiple completely separate communions? What does one mean? Certainly not anything that would be recognizable to the early Church, or even the medieval Church. This is why Anglicanism seems to me to be wrong. It invents a new ecclesiology.

Username checks out

@@BenjaminAnderson21 So do the facts.

@jamesford5994 No they are not. Your priests are just as invalid as your priestesses. Your Church was founded by Henry VIII on divorce and murder, and does not stand in apostolic succession. Your Eucharist is invalid and bread and wine, merely, because your priests do not have validly consecrated hands. Just join the Church; there is an Ordinariate for you. At the very least, become Eastern Orthodox because all their sacraments are valid.

The Eastern Orthodox church disagrees :)

As recent converts to Anglicanism, my wife and I had to discuss this issue too. In the end, we figured are good arguments on both sides. However, if we baptize our child now and they later desire an adult baptism, they can always do that, but the reverse isn’t true, so it didn’t feel like an issue for us.

@@TheDallasDwayne I see your point but I’m really young so I’m not to eager to change denominations right now ill just stay put and have faith in gods divine promise

@@TheScholarlyBaptisteastern orthodoxy is the church established by Christ. heres a fun quick clip as a "trailer" if you will. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sn20pr5jBu4.htmlsi=BI6YJL_lwM1a3FjO

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sn20pr5jBu4.htmlsi=BI6YJL_lwM1a3FjO I dont know why youtube always blocks youtube links but I can always try try agai

@@jakewilliam15 im subscribed to this guy i will say very powerful video