Why I Am Not Roman Catholic 

Yeah but Why not just cross the Tiber and become a full Catholic?

The only two churches that make sense to me are the RC and EO. Anglicanism was started by a king who wanted to bang more women and a bishop who wished he was Pope.

@@KillerofGods it was funny the first 900 times I heard that joke.

@@MissingTrails Wasn't really trying to make a joke. It's one of the reasons why Im not even considering it to convert into, theres no historical basis for it. Plus I'd much rather have a Pope than a King of England. But I could put that aside if it had any basis for its existence. Is consider Lutheranism over it, but even that church appears to just be a shadow of what it used to be... I doubt Luther would be a fan. Heck I don't even personally like the Pope but there is some basis for it. So I can accept it. Personally I'm leaning more EO.

@@MissingTrailsthere’s no joke. The church was invented so the King could have more power and so that he could divorce his wife objectively.

If you were GENUINELY coming back to what you forefathers believed, then you would be Catholic. Protestantism did not exist prior to the 16th century. So, you have many, many generations of Catholics in your family tree.

All of the councils, if you read them are full of bizarre non binding stuff (especially the later councils) I would say in so far as the Council clarify what is orthodoxy or not, the idea that we can depict Jesus in images is the important part, as that resolved the iconoclast controversy. I understand a Reformed person probably disagrees but that is my understanding, as it does seem iconoclasm largely goes away after this council as it is slowly adopted by the entire Christian world, while liturgical icon veneration as practiced in the East is not universally adopted.

@@Young_Anglican Yeah a lot of the later councils are objectively more law oriented for the time period. Nobody truly jousts outside of Renn Faires for example.

Yeah, the Seventh Ecumenical Council is a bit wild on that front, and I would probably struggle to affirm it. It’s bad to be an iconoclast but it’s also bad to be an iconodule.

@redeemedzoomer6053 Concerning the charge of idolatry: Icons are not idols but symbols, therefore when an Orthodox venerates an icon, he is not guilty of idolatry. He is not worshipping the symbol, but merely venerating it. Such veneration is not directed toward wood, or paint or stone, but towards the person depicted. Therefore relative honor is shown to material objects, but worship is due to God alone.We do not make obeisance to the nature of wood, but we revere and do obeisance to Him who was crucified on the Cross... When the two beams of the Cross are joined together I adore the figure because of Christ who was crucified on the Cross, but if the beams are separated, I throw them away and burn them. -St. John of Damascus

Did the Jews commit idolatry whrn God told Moses to make a serpent out of brass as and for people who were sick if they were to look upon that brass they would be healed. Did God break His own commandment, did God tell others to break His commandment. Never trust a protestant they know nothing of truth and lead you into error.

Do people before Nicaea clarified the doctrine of the Trinity get saved even without a proper understanding and belief of the Trinity? If yes, were the bishops mean to dogmatise the apostolic creed and require the faithful to believe in the Trinity and hypostatic union or were they doing what they were supposed to do?

@@Altair1904 This is a fairly well-worn debate, but yes Christians pre-Nicaea certainly did believe in the Divinity of Christ and in the Trinity. These doctrines were defined and clarified by the council, but they are clearly already there, quite explicitly, even in the New Testament itself; so they are not adding something new to the faith. This is wholly different than something like the Immaculate Conception or the Bodily Assumption of Mary which arise centuries after the Apostles, and therefore can make no claim to the "always, everywhere, and by all" catholicity that St. Vincent of Lerins describes as the focus of the Ecumenical Councils (the Immaculate conception is still not accepted in the East or among most Protestants). I don't see a problem with these beliefs as "pious opinion" - but to require them (on pain of anathema) as essential to salvation is a major reason I am not Roman Catholic. I would say the same about Transubstantiation as the explanation of how Christ becomes really present in Holy Communion. Obviously, the Early Fathers do believe in Real Presence, but some (such as St. Ambrose) make statements that clearly do not square with the later teaching of Trent. So is Ambrose a saint? Or is he anathema? If he is a saint then it follows that one can, in principle, be saved and sanctified without this particular doctrine, so why then make it a dogma that is absolutely necessary for salvation (as Trent presumes to do), knowing that some believers in Christ do not accept it? Especially since the reason they do not accept it is that St. Paul the Apostle also makes statements that do not square with Transubstantiation. So they are seriously trying to be fully faithful to the Apostolic deposit.

@@danielhixon8209 I am confused by your attitude as in some areas you seem honestly seeking for truth while in others you make claims so blatantly false and claims who would disqualify your faith that it almost seems a way to argue of a Muslim or a JW. Let’s take things slowly. You conceded my position that one didn’t have to believe in the Trinity as defined by Nicaea, prior to Nicaea, in order to be saved, correct? Also, do you concede that after being informed of Nicaea, you gotta subscribe to that dogmatically definition of the Trinity at Nicaea to be saved? If and only if you are honest (which I want to give u the benefit of the doubt and say you are), you will realise that by conceding these points, you have conceded the entire Catholic position. Now, getting the pop corn to see how you tap dance around that

@@Altair1904dude did you even read what he said? He literally said Christians before Nicea believed in the Trinity because it’s clearly laid out in scripture. What are you talking about conceding to your point? He straight up rejected your starting assumption/premise

@@ElvisI97 not at all, the guy is attacking a strawman and I was pointing out the inconsistency of his positions. The data for the Trinity is in scriptures but you got different opinions even to this day, in fact many Protestants are unitarians and leave alone the debate about the procession of the Spirit, they are not elevated in theology to deal with that. In the same way, the data for the Papacy, intercession and communion of saints, icons, the Eucharist as the body and flesh of Jesus and so on are in scripture but obviously you got difference of opinions. Who decides? It’s the Church that has the authority to correctly exegete the scriptures. Once the Church correctly exegetes a passage, it has the DUTY to dogmatize it and if you then reject the doctrine you are bringing judgement on yourself

No, you did not get your Apostolic succession from Gregory the great, you granted it to yourselves, just as if I were to grant it to myself total lies. You are no different Anglicans or Protestants granting themselves Authority. But they have none.

@@peterxuereb9884 It was denied in 1896 by Leo XIII, but then Leo X made Henry VIII the Defender of the Faith. They need to get their act together. Blessings.

@jamessheffield4173 You obviously have a problem with mathematics as well as religion and truth and history. It was Pope Leo X, who came before Pope Leo XVIII, who made Henry defender of the faith in 1521. But if you knew your history, that title was later stripped from Henry, the butcher when he started chopping of the heads of his wives because marriage is a Sacrament and divorce is not permissible so Henry chopped of their heads while doing so he also made himself as the head of the Church this was done after he started executing Catholic's whom his wives also were but he also executed Thomas Moore Chancellor, Bishop John Fisher and all clergy and lay Catholics who said he Henry was in error. Not to mention taking control of all churches and abbeys. So it is because of that that the title of Defender of the Faith was stripped from him. So, in the end, he ended up being the enemy of the faith and not a defender by any means. My suggestion is to know your history before you vomit more lies.

@@peterxuereb9884 Magna Carta 1215 t the English Church is to be free and to have all its rights fully and its liberties entirely.

You did not get your Apostolic succession from Pope St. Gregory the Great. Plus, Pope St. Gregory the Great was a Roman Catholic. The Church of England lost Apostolic succession when they split from Rome.

Bravo , but your words fall on deaf ears.

Can you explain? Thank you.

May I ask, why do you think Catholics have a "closed communion?" Also, isn't "legalism" in the eye of the beholder?

⁠@@richardgreene6810because you can’t partake in communion unless you are Roman Catholic. That’s what the church believes.

@@therighteousgoat5165 I wasn't clear. I'm wondering what your opinion is on why Catholics have a closed communion.

@@richardgreene6810I’m saying that closed communion gives me the impression that the church believes nobody is saved outside of it, even those who die in Jesus’ name in other countries where Catholicism or Orthodoxy are near non-existent or genuine Christians that died before they could be confirmed and receive their first communion. Catholics and Orthodox believe communion is essential for salvation, so I do not understand why they have to judge who is worthy of Christ’s salvation instead of having us partake of it at our own risk.

@@therighteousgoat5165 There's a difference between believing that there is no possible salvation outside of the Church, and believing that the Church is the only GUARANTEED means of salvation. And the Vatican II Council corrected the former belief. It's interesting that you bring up risk. No doubt, you are referring to Paul's admonition in 1 Cor. 11:29. Well, if the Catholic doctrine is true, that Jesus' body, blood, soul and divinity is transubtantially present in the Eucharist, that it can only be conferred by a priest ordained along an unbroken line of the apostleship, and that you must be in a state of grace, having confessed your mortal sins to an ordained priest before receiving, then you also believe that anyone who partakes of this same Eucharist, but does not believe these things, can most certainly be damned to hell. Therefore, it would be highly irresponsible and uncharitable to allow an unbeliever to partake. But if you do, in fact, believe all these things, then why don't you receive the Catholic Sacraments and be a part of the only Church that GUARANTEES your salvation?

Not all Anglicans are *that* close to Catholicism. Some are way more Reformed in mindset and honestly, I have seen more and more Lutheran leaning Anglicans the more I've interacted with them irl. Especially given a how they do penance at the service.

Seems like sort of a self-explanatory question. Evidently that "stone's throw" is the dividing line which they cannot affirm.

Papal infallibility is a "slap some Newman on it" development of doctrine.

​@@BurberryharrySorry, no protestants for XVI centuries

St. Robert Bellarmine’s opinions are not infallible.

Tell that to the trads who think recent popes are heretics

Catholics recognize that there is only one Body of Christ and that all believers are members of that Body. We ask those who have already run the race and won the prize (cf. 1 Cor 9:24) to pray for us who are still working out our salvation with “fear and trembling”. (cf. Phil 2:12) 1. The saints are alive, not dead. (cf. Mk 12:26-27) 2. The saints are aware of our prayers and needs. (cf. Lk 15:10, Heb 12:1, Rev 5:8) 3. The saints are righteous, so their prayers are effective. (cf. Rev 21:27, Jam 5:16) 4. Prayer in Catholicism encompasses both worship directed towards God and seeking assistance from saints, who are regarded as intercessors, not objects of worship. 5. The Bible supports intercessory prayer among believers, as seen in the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus’ teachings, and Paul’s letters. (cf. 1 Tim 2:1) 6. Asking saints in heaven for intercession extends the principle of asking fellow believers for their prayers, and Scripture does not prohibit this practice. 7. Therefore, it is consistent with biblical principles and Christian liberty for Catholics to pray to saints for their intercessory prayers, as it enriches the spiritual connection between believers and God. 8. Scripture is silent on the question of asking saints to pray for us (which is NOT necromancy, btw). 9. Therefore, we are free to do so. (cf. 1 Co 6:12, Gal. 2:4). Make sense?

How did they do a poor job at keeping the Apostle’s doctrine? The Catholic Church itself was started by our lord and saviour Jesus Christ. Read the writings of the Church fathers. The Catholic Church is Apostolic, Biblical, and historical. The Church was meant to be one. Not numerous contradicting denominations. Invent many retcons? What did Catholics invent? I can talk about the numerous things which Protestants invented. The false doctrine of faith alone, OSAS, and the removal of numerous books from the Bible. Even the Anglican Church itself is a weird mix of Protestant reformed ideas and some aspects of Catholic tradition. It was Protestantism which invented and changed everything. I will pray for you and young Anglican.

@@michealclear3265 "The pope NEVER fail!" "Well actually the pope can fail sometimes but never when he is ex cathedra" "CV II? Not ex cathedra. This ex cathedra thing just happened two or three time in 2000 years." Your religion is lame and you guy need retcons and circular arguments to sustain this idea of having a pope controlling everything.

Yep. The Church of England and the Anglican Communion was created out of a completely political conflict, motivated by secular reasons, and violently forced onto the land and the people by a long-drawn-out and incredibly bloody regime. There was no theological development behind the English Reformation. So many Anglicans are too cowardly to actually confront that reality. Anglican theology and apologetics since then has been a total cope, trying to create a weird theological system to convince themselves that they actually have a footing to stand on, that they are somehow totally a true apostolic church that possesses the True Faith. Funny how so many anglicans love to claim the term “Anglo-Catholic” to lend themselves some sense of credibility (“We’re the Church *in* England!”), but then rail against Roman Catholics and the whole system of apostolic churches in communion with Rome.

Lol. At least God brings good out of evil.

Henry VIII was actually a devout Catholic. He was very afraid for his immortal soul and instead of looking after his people, he left thousands of pounds to the RCC for Masses to be said for his soul. It was his son Edward and especially his daughter, Elizabeth who pushed through Protestantism in England and got rid of such corruptive practices. Pope Pius V, being the loving man of God that he was, not only excommunicated the Queen, but gave Catholics permission to kill her (forgiving them in advance for the mortal sin of murder). Why would anyone want to be part of such an organisation? Would Christ have done this? Would Christ have condoned such practices?

This comment is what happens when you don’t pay attention

1st: "As an Anglican you still accept the authority of your Anglican church... you cannot customize your belief." Does that ever happen? I recall something said by Robert Louis Stevenson: "in the final analysis, we are all our own doctors of divinity." I rely heavily upon the parable of the prodigal son, it explains theological reason for Free Will. God wants each of us to find their way to God via their own volition. That can only be done in the context of freedom, which also changes the system of Civics we should install, and here, the Anglican model (Anglo-Saxon Civics/Common Law et al) gets it as dead on close to what Christs tells us regarding civics as any in the world. It is why Anglo-Saxonism stood up to both Naziism and then Soviet-Communism and, ah hem, prevailed. Ultimately that distinct version placed a man on the moon, and no sooner did that, then American version of Anglo-Saxon civics became corrupted and began favoring the rich and the powerful, (the ones that must thread the eye of the needle to get into heaven) along with the Catholic Church which did this under the pretext of anti-abortion. (In civics, it is a fundamental rule of thumb that decency/morality/values/ethics is a middle class characteristic, the rich don't need them, the poor can't afford them - Catholic social teaching's validity is based upon this singular fact, and just as America was landing on the moon American society was at its epigee regarding the size of the middle class - if American Catholicism had continued its emphasis of Catholic Social Teaching and its slightly leftist position in economics, instead of abandoning it with reckless abandon for anti-abortion pro-rich, we could expect the middle class to be bigger than it was in 1969 and for society to be more ethical and decent [depending upon the meaning of that word] and therefore there being more people conceived out of love and less abortions overall, and less violence in society overall. Everything I say here between these parenthesis is known by the catholic churchm, they've been around a long time. Yet the hierarchy went for the gold and abandoned virtue, and goodness, but have heart - the nuns and many priests and laypeople on the ground still toil to help the poor become culturally middle class every day, its Catholic bishops and some conservative priests that have become corrupted by the quest for wealth, power and certainty - and the vatican seems way too much like a later-day Sanhedrin than anything else. Still, if you need to do an exericism, who you gonna call? Well, that would be the Jesuits - they are waiting for the Church to get its bearings correct. Meanwhile I find the Anglican's in the right spot, not just on civics, but on faith and belief. C.S. Lewis made the right decision to stay Anglican.) We are all on our own prodigal journey to find our way to God, not to the bishop of Canterbury or the bishop of Rome, but to Christ, God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I assume we are each on this journey and have faith in its outcome for those of us that make it in pursuit of Truth, Love and Good Will. Whereever you (or I) are on our journey - as long as we make it in good will pursuit of truth (and love) the outcome can only be what the Father desires for us - a return to him. That is the purpose of freedom. St. Augustine said (again, paraphrasing) that God is truth, and since God is truth, any pursuit of truth is a pursuit of God and any disco very of a truth is a discovery of God and gets us that much closer to God (both singularly and collectively). In John 10:10 Jesus compares himself to Mohammed (who began his career as caravan raid, thief), then goes on to say that he has come to give us life, and life in full abundance. In 1969 Christians walked on the moon, Christians from an Anglo-Saxon based society (Buzz Aldrin brought Communion bread with him and took it on the surface of the moon) while Muslims in Sahara and Afghanistan were still living in caves. There have been many great men, thinkers, philosophers, and founders of religions, societies, civilizations, from Zoroaster to Confucious to Marx, but it was the civilization that grew out of the teachings of a 1st century Jewish carpenter that landed on the moon. First Jesus said he came to give us life in abundance, then that happens - and after and at the point where our system of civics most closely aligns with the system of civics we find sprinkled about in the Gospels. And then we dropped it. In pursuit of anti-abortionism, in pursuit of Reaganism and now we have Trumpism which overlays with demonism uncomfortably closely in a venn diagram. And the Catholic church had a huge impact on our arriving at that place when it abandoned emphasis on Catholic Social teaching for single threaded anti-abortionism. And it did this on purpose. Anglo-Saxon law is based upon pragmatism. Originally, two litigants took their dispute to one of the Kings judges, and he pragmatically resolved the dispute by balancing out the competing values and interests. As Oliver Wendall Holmes said, they were free to choose from the market place of ideas. And did. Consequently Anglo-Saxon civics is a patchwork quilt of ideologies, each one employed only where it makes the most sense, and ignored where it does not. Its a system of "values laden inductive pragmatism", it's both simple & ingenious at the same time. When I looked around for another system like it, the only place I found it was in the Gospels. Specifically The Good Samaritan parable. Where Jesus compares the Levite priests steadfastly following their legal ideology and the Samaritan who makes his decision based upon his value of love of neighbor. Then Jesus says, who's the better neighbor, which is the reason for the law? Finally, the Anglican's have a King, who doesn't exercise the powers implied that he has. Remind you of another situation? I grew up Catholic, but I'm pretty certain the Anglicans have overwhelmingly got things, perhaps not perfect, the closest to being correct. And they aren't arrogant. The greatest thing Christ left us with is Communion. Go to an Anglican mass, they will tell you, if you are drawn to Communion then have it. Get as close and as intimate to Christ as possible as soon as possible. It so important. They got that right too. If you value love, how can you deny a person's pursuit of love even if its with the same sex? Will you let your levite rules keep you from your values? Is not any turning of one's back on love an act of violence?

@@kaneinkansas 1. To answer your question "does it [customizing belief] ever happen? If it does NOT happen shows that you cannot do it. That being said Anglican Church does not have unified belief. The Anglican Church near where I live has state of virgin Mary and altar - looks pretty close to Catholic Church. The other Anglican Church looks more Protestants of the Reformed branch. 2. Catholics do believe we have free-will, i.e. while God' grace enables and moves us, i.e. grace does not force us but we freely cooperate with it, known as synergism. 3.Your statement of Catholic social teaching and behaviour of clergies is your opinion, which you are entitled. There is no relation between teaching of Jesus with first man on the moon and Muslims living in caves in Sahara and Afghanistan (they do not live in caves). Even if Aldrin took communion bread to the moon - well, so what? You are entitled to glorify Anglo-Saxon, IMHO it has nothing to with the Gospel. You criticize Catholic anti abortion, are you pro abortion? 4. Did Jesus compare himself with Muhammad in John 10:10, i.e. He started as thief? It seems you never read John 10:7-11. Go and read it slowly. 5. You wrote that Anglican king who is the king or queen of UK does Not exercise power? Which king/queen you retaking about? Henry VIII had the power to chop the heads of some of his wives, which the current king, Charles III does not have. 6. I do not need to go to Anglican service to have communion - we have it in any of the Catholic Church. I strongly disagree with your support of same-sex relation albeit they are in love.

@@justfromcatholic In regard to your comment on #3. There is a direct correlation between the teachings of Jesus and the first man on the moon being a Christian. Nobel Lauriete Joe Stiglitz has said that the ascent of the West (western civilization) is based upon the West arriving at a system or methodology by which truth was allowed to prevail - though sometimes it takes a beating before it does prevail. Almost everything hinges on that. St. Augustine said that whenever you have found a truth, you have drawn yourself closer to God. We are each born with different gifts. We are called to pursue truth in different fields - for instance Einstein, Newton and Galileo pursued truth in Physics. That pursuit brings them (and us) closer to God. That truth also expands our technological ability which in turn allows us to "have life and have it to the full" as John 10:10 states. So all of this hinges on truth prevailing. This is not universal, not by a long shot. In Nabeel Qureshi's "Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus", he paints a picture that can be summed up as: "In Islam, authority creates truth." Whereas in the West truth creates authority. In American law (which is based upon Anglo-Saxon Common Law) truth is a defense against slander: if I say someone is not very good at their job, its slander, but if I can prove its true, I am not liable for slander. In South Korea, where saving face is paramount, their is no defense to slander. In the Gospels Jesus places emphasis on the values of truth, love, freedom - among others. He also spells out a system of decision making that is decidedly non-ideological, as an example the Good Samaritan parable, where the Jewish priests avoids contact with the injured person because they fear it would violate their ideology and the Samaritan does not because he weighed his values and then acted accordingly (out of love and generosity), then Jesus says, "who is the better neighbor?" - and at that point in time, Love of neighbor was the 2nd most important commandment commonly acknowledged by Jews at the time, thanks to the teaching of the Jewish lawyer, Hillel. The point is, Jesus teachings and values were elevated in the civilization that was spawned from his teachings and values. For 1300 years the West was nearly eclipsed by Huns, Avars, Moors, Vikings, Mongols and Turks. During this time the values were being gestated into the culture of the west, but the closest manifestation emerged in Anglo-Saxon realm, because of the Common Law. (as a result Anglo-Saxon civilization was much less ideologically bound vs the Continent which was ruled from time to time by all manner of ideologies, which is nihilistic because ideologies attempt to answer a question before its been asked, eventually reality serves up a context that renders that ideology absurd, leading to "we had to destory the village in order to save the village" kind of nihilism: Jesus seems to know what he was talking about in regard to civics, but then, some of us believe he was divine and so of course knew what he was talking about in regard to civics). Perhaps it was just a coincidence, but I think not, that the civilization that was spawned by the teachings of a 1st century Jewish carpenter was also the first and so far only civilization to reach and walk on the moon. Some muslims in the Sahara and Afghanistan were most certainly living in caves and tents in 1969 when America landed on the moon. Watch the opening scenes to the movie "Patton" and you will see them living a rough, poverty & ignorance life, and that in places less "rough" than the real Sahara just to the south of where that movie takes place. I was talking about Queen Elizabeth II. In theory has all power, in fact does not exercise it. Remind you of someone else? In regard to abortion, it is not a matter that I agree that abortion is virtue or vice - and I think it is a vice - the question is, how to handle it in civics - the question in civics is: pro-choice or forced-birth. The fact is, with the overthrow of Roe, women with troubled pregnancies in Kansas City, Missouri were denied care - this is ideology triumphing over common sense. Fortunately the University of Kansas Medical Center is right on the state line in Kansas City, Kansas. If you use ideology that denies all abortion, then you have just injected nihilism and horror to women who have troubled pregnancies - you also assume that catholic clerics, known for sexual abuse and hiding abusers from the law, has the right to impose this ideology upon society. I would suggest that you leave the decision making to the poor creature who has to bear the burden of pregnancy, as nature and God thru nature, has so endowed (maybe God knew what he is doing, their are far fewer female psychopaths and abusers than there are males - of which the Catholic clergy is rife with them). We have long known that you cannot legislate morality. Prohibition is the main exhibit: we made a vice illegal, alcohol consumption, only for that prohibition to spawn an even worse vice - organized crime and the violence it inflicted. Because decency/ethics/morality/values are middle class characteristics, the rich don't need them and the poor can't afford them - the smart policy is to expand the middle class in both directions - and doing so would drive down abortions to very low numbers: the nation typically measured to have the lowest abortion rate is the Netherlands where abortion is both largely legal and largely free - the reason is because there is almost no rank poverty there and people are well educated. Again the Catholic church knows all of this - and this was why it pursued Catholic Social Teaching. In 1972 it abandoned that. It knowingly abandoned the correct policy position and aligned themselves with the rich elite on the right. This is simply a massive corrupt bargain they made, but its the same church that was busy allowing clergy to sexually abuse people and then hiding and protecting them from justice. Not very in keeping with God's "one true church". In regard to "same sex marrage", you are simply letting your ideology block you from allowing or accepting the manifestation of love, which all Christians value supremely, to prevail. Lots of people marry outside of love, and I think that is wrong - but I cannot tell who really loves and who does not or whether love might manifest afterwards. It is not in your power to know if same sex marraiges are lacking in love or are a manifestation of it. What will you do, if you go to heaven and find out that Jesus is (or was) gay? Does that even make a difference? I had a dream many years ago, while I was working with a bunch of people that were making hostile fun of a person they thought were gay. I went along with the laughter. Then I had a "Jesus dream" where I was looking down on the island of Manhattan - which has every form of humanity in it, poor, rich, gay, straight, muslim, hindu, christian - et al. and then Jesus said to me, "I just can't help myself" and then reached down and grab the entire island and pulled it up to his chest and hugged it - and note I was watching and outside that hug. My advice to you is don't let your ideology keep you from being outside of that hug. Get in on the inside of it. That's what I'm trying to do with my life. It's a constant struggle.

Just as the Founding Fathers of the United States established the principles and framework that led to the birth of a new nation, the New Testament authors, through their inspired writings and teachings, developed the beliefs, practices and ecclesial structures for what was initially termed "the Way" and later evolved into the Catholic Church Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, used the term "Catholic Church" in a letter dated AD 107 in a manner which suggests that the name was already in widespread usage before the end of the first century and possibly during the lifetime of the Apostle John, who may have regarded himself as a member of the Catholic Church-the enduring name for the Body of Christ to this day.

And Catholics split from Orthodox with the Great Schism. What's your point?

😂

Very loving! Makes me want to convert to Catholicism… oh wait, it doesn’t. Come on man, if you’re going to try to represent our religion, have some class. You can type this all you want, but when’s the last time you stepped foot into a soup kitchen? If being damned to Hell was so easy, I’ll see ya there.

Stop begging the question. Jesus didn’t start the Roman church. He started the catholic Church, which includes the Greeks, Protestants, and orientals.

@@bruhmingo The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as “the Way” (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christians” beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26). As early as 107 A.D., those same individuals referred to themselves collectively as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote: _“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priest) as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])_ Notice that Ignatius does not take pains to introduce the term "Catholic Church"; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. In other words, the Christian assembly was calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century.

The problem is that the Pope of Rome never had power out side his district and the councils are over the Pope there is no place in history the Pope had rule over other patriarchs

@@benboulet1724 you are very wrong sir. The Pope has always been the first and if you look at church history, there are many instances that suggest the Pope had ultimate authority in the church (if you are honest with history). Nevertheless, history has a very important role but the Papacy is first of all Biblical given that the Savior gives the keys to Peter in an exclusive way mirroring the book of Isaiah with the King David conferring the keys of the Kingdom to the Prime Minister of Israel

@@benboulet1724 That's a hotly debated topic. Remember that the Papacy is Biblical because of the exclusive office of the keys conferred by the Savior to Peter alone

I was scanning through all of the first comments, wondering to myself , "where are all the Catholic responses to this?" It didn't take long

​@@benboulet1724I thought the whole Pope thing was because Jesus left His Church to be in charge by Peter? I think Peter was the first Bishop of Rome Idk. I never took any theology courses in college

No, what your church has done is essentially highjack and adjective and turned it into a noun.

@@bruhmingo Is that what Protestant scholars say? One Protestant Bible scholar who is honest about Church history is the renowned Church historian, J. N. D. Kelly who acknowledges that the original Church founded by Jesus called itself the “Catholic Church”. Kelly wrote: "As regards ‘Catholic,' its original meaning was ‘universal' or ‘general' ... As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church" (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).

You must be mormon then

Not an argument

Spicy comment

Would the one true faith engage in sexual abuse of children? Would it protect those that do? It's an organization that protected pedophiles and sexual predators. The Catholic church never "confessed" its sin nor did penance for them. They should be crawling on their belly begging the Anglican Communion to teach them how to be a better organization.

"study more" *doesn't elaborate further*

I'd recommend a book called 'Celtic Christianity' by Ray Simpson which outlines early Christian history in the British Isles, before the Roman Catholic Church took over in AD 597. The Roman Rite was not always 'in charge' and they bullied their way into my country at the Synod of Whitby. Dark times indeed and it took nearly 700 years to reclaim our Christian faith.

How is the Anglican Church doing nowadays in England? Saw that Reverend Calvin Robinson stirring things up over there

Who: Pope Leo IX When: 1054 Where: Rome

Why would they support Isreal? Not all protestants are dispensationalist zionists

@@iron_vicuna6784 Hear hear

What does modern day Israel have to do with anything here?

Things are much more complicated than I imagine you know regarding the whole Henry situation. The church that was prior to Henry's rejection of Rome and after was the exact same. The same clergy, the same parishioners, the same liturgy(at first), the same beliefs. It was in perfect continuity. It is for that reason we consider ourselves as a branch of the church that can be traced back to Christ and the apostles, one that simply came to openly reject the claim of authority that the Pope made of himself. That's our view at least Even if one were to reject it, Henry is not as obvious a starting point as portrayed. After his death, and the death of his son Edward, his daughter Mary took over. Mary returned the church to submit to the Pope, in every way the Church of England under Mary was Roman Catholic. If Henry did start something, it died under Mary. It was only under Elizabeth that the Church of England came to be seen as a truly separate entity, both in the eyes of Rome and itself, at least officially. The church was still in continuity with itself, with the church under Mary which was in continuity with the church under Henry(but again, by that standard it was in continuity with the church founded by Christ), however never again under Rome You could make the argument that there was liturgical continuity with the church under Henry, as the Elizabethan church returned to the liturgical reforms of Crammer, who certainly was a prominent figure of the English reformation, and the premier theologian of the Edwardian church of England. However, that is Crammer, not Henry Thus, depending on how you look at it, although Henry provided a historical back drop, it was either founded by Christ, Elizabeth/the Elizabethen bishops, or by Thomas Cramer.