Anglo-Catholic priest, Fr. Wesley Walker, shares why Anglicans should think twice about becoming Roman Catholic. Full video here: • An Introduction to the...
Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. ' This is the greatest and first commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
deluded people.... following those who claim to have apostolic succession but ZERO apostolic power and boldness. sick people prayed over by these clergies with zero to small results, even death after being prayed for. no boldness to evangelize people on the street or public place, only in the comfort and safety within a religious building, and even those preaching produce small results in lives being derply transformed into the image of the Son of God. they only become more religious and fanatic/bigot in their faith
Does this gentleman believe his female colleague "priests" also have valid ordination? Also does he believe the female "bishops" of his church have valid apostolic succession?
Not sure if he’s ACNA or Episcopal but in the ACNA female bishops aren’t allowed and female priests are up to the individual Diocese to decide. We definitely need to move forward with an outright ban and there has been some movement to that regard.
Kind Henry said he was the head of the Church when he was not. All those priests and bishops who supported him were excommunicated, so they lost the power to give sacraments. So, every bishop and priest after that is not truly ordained.
@@TruLuan Supreme Governor of the Church in England, not "Head of the Church" (Christ). And popes have taken on power they were never given by the Holy Spirit. They don't get to excommunicate someone over an argument of jurisdiction. You are looking at this from an extremely biased perspective.
@@puremercury Thanks for the info. I am Catholic but have been exploring both Anglican and Orthodoxy. Vatican II is a disaster, I've been considering the SSPX too, as they do a better job at shepherding their flock than the ones at the Novus Ordo Masses. The issue I have with Anglican is Every time I see a local worship on their live Facebook pages, there is always Rock music and rainbow flag support lol. And don't get me wrong the Novus Ordo Masses can get just as bad too, which is why I've been considering the SSPX.
I was Episcopalian for 17 years, and tried to be faithful to apostolic Christianity in that communion. But finally I had to come to terms with the fact that I belonged to a church which saw the apostolic and patristic Tradition as just one option among many equally valid ones. My last rector actually preached, during Holy Week, that Christ did not rise from the dead - that this was a story the traumatized apostles made up to cope with the shock of his death. I am now a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I am truly home.
@@TheB1naryStay in your church my friend. We must commit “Reconquista” retake our holy homes, by evangelism and faith. We leave people who spread demonic teachings in the home of God. Pray for the peace and recusitation of your churches faith. While also praying your false teachers renounce their wicked teachings and return to labor for the truth of Christ!
@@coleburns5497 Whilst I agree in principle, this just isn't going to happen. The CofE (in our case) has been lost. For a long time. We are grasping and clutching at straws and some vestige of "resuscitation" but none is coming. Always go where life is.
Your Bishop could be validly ordained, you could be validly ordained, but I that doesn’t mean there isn’t schism, either Anglicans, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or Coptic Orthodox are right if Holy Orders exist. You’d have to make a VERY strong case that Anglicans out of these 4 churches are the right one when it arose much much later and doesn’t hold orthodox views
deluded people.... following those who claim to have apostolic succession but ZERO apostolic power and boldness. sick people prayed over by these clergies with zero to small results, even death after being prayed for. no boldness to evangelize people on the street or public place, only in the comfort and safety within a religious building, and even those preaching produce small results in lives being deeply transformed into the image of the Son of God. they only become more religious and fanatic/bigot in their faith
@@cyphus5 they are not Anglo-Catholics. Unless if they are part of the Anglican Ordinariate they are just another heretical Protestant denomination and in no way are they catholic. They are not a part of the one true church instituted by Jesus Christ. They are a break off denomination that started because evil King Henry Vlll wanted a divorce and the pope said no. Even if they have some apostolic succession they still have invalid masses, invalid communion, invalid ordinations and invalid sacraments. Why be an Anglican half catholic wannabe when you can just be a full catholic in communion with the church instituted by our lord Jesus Christ?
That’s not true. There is no Apostolic Succession in Anglicanism. So, why does the Roman Catholic Church regard Anglican orders as invalid? In 1896 Pope Leo XIII issued a bull, Apostolicae Curae, in which he declared Anglican orders to be absolutely null and utterly void. There were several reasons. One concerned the form, the form of words in the consecration rite, in the Edwardine Ordinal used from 1551 until 1662 (except for Mary's five-year reign when the Roman rite was restored, and the Cromwellian Period when bishops were abolished). Following the words "Receive the Holy Ghost" the word "bishop" was not mentioned, nor anything definite to say what a bishop is. Although this was fixed, so to speak, in the 1662 Book, Leo said the defect of form meant there were no valid consecrations in England for over 100 years and so the hierarchy had died out. Even if the form was acceptable after 1662, there were no valid bishops to use it. The Anglican line had died out.
deluded people.... following those who claim to have apostolic succession but ZERO apostolic power and boldness. sick people prayed over by these clergies with zero to small results, even death after being prayed for. no boldness to evangelize people on the street or public place, only in the comfort and safety within a religious building, and even those preaching produce small results in lives being derply transformed into the image of the Son of God. they only become more religious and fanatic/bigot in their faith
@@HonoraryCitizen1 Christ instituted the position of The Papacy to validate and invalidate Masses....Jesus wasn't trying to set up a clown-freak-show *shrugs*
C'mon i don't get why people should follow a "religion" which historically was created just cuz a crybaby couldn't divorce and so called himself a saint
@@DrChaunceyBlevins deluded people.... following those who claim to have apostolic succession but ZERO apostolic power and boldness. sick people prayed over by these clergies with zero to small results, even death after being prayed for. no boldness to evangelize people on the street or public place, only in the comfort and safety within a religious building, and even those preaching produce small results in lives being deeply transformed into the image of the Son of God. they only become more religious and fanatic/bigot in their faith
@DrChaunceyBlevins Those are ceremonial, bureaucratic title when applied to humans. If we had it any other way, then the edicts of men, however "holy," would be binding on earth. I find that notion blasphemous.
Not necessarily. His minister of “ordination” could have had good intention even if it was improper form. The validity of his sacraments is not determined by nor determines the sincerity of his consecrater.
Anglicanism is pretty great, in my opinion. The reformations in most places were overtly doctrinal, where the English reformation was overtly political. The populace got robbed by nobles, but the faith that emerged isn't terrible. One can be Anglican and Orthodox leaning or Catholic leaning, but the downside is you'll also be in communion with Reformed minded people. Some of us reach a point where we are no longer willing to tolerate Calvinism. If you're okay with a bit of Calvin, Anglicanism might be the church for you.
Even worse than being in communion with "Reform minded people" is that you'll be in communion with liturgical Unitarians who don't believe in the apostolic Tradition at all.
Being an Anglican Calvinist that’s most of the reason I switched from Presbyterianism. I definitely have a higher view of the sacraments than a traditionally reformed person but Calvinist ideas are pretty firmly present in the Anglican Church with the 39 articles and the “To Be a Christian” catechism of the ACNA.
@@joachim847 Definitely, we just got a new ACNA church plant that has exploded in growth near me. Great community but a priest is pretty new so I prefer the Anglo Catholic ACNA church in the same town which was a more experienced vicar. They are definitely very attached to Calvinism and there’s a good amount of it near me since most of the ACNA congregates, like me, come from Presbyterianism. I’ve never understood why so many other Christians are so aggressively against the Calvinists, but that’s definitely a sentiment that comes up.
That’s the ONLY thing keeping me from Anglicanism as I have always totally disagreed with Calvinism or any semi Calvinist doctrine, which isn’t biblical. I don’t even mind Protestant or Evangelicalism as long as it’s not in any way, shape or form Calvinist.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl A church born from the Catholic Church in 1534. Henry wanted an heir and made a church that would allow him to divorce. Plain and simple.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl 1534 is its birth date when they abandoned the one Christian church on earth, the Catholic Church. A literally creation of Henry VIII when he tried to annul his marriage to his first wife. A clone of Catholicism that lost all of its lineage going back to the apostles. An anti-church for all intents and purposes. The once saving Grace if you can call it that is the Church of England is not a child of Luther the deformer but a child of Henry born out of sin as well.
The words of the Church of England ordination of priests service are so much more pastoral and moving than the Roman Catholic service, which sounds very stiff and functional.
Two words…pope Francis I & Vatican II. That’s why many Anglo-Catholics still existing within the Anglican Communion won’t cross the Tiber under the current pontificate. Most Anglo-Catholics within the Anglican Communion are “left alone” to our own Catholic devices by our current Anglican “bishops”. Under Pope Francis I and Vatican Ii we would be devastated by modernism and the Novus Ordo.
Anglo-Catholics may consider themselves Catholics, but the Catholic Church does not. This isn’t a matter of snobbery; it is simply a matter of the Catholic Church remaining consistent with what it has taught and believed for over 2,000 years. In the Anglican communion, it remains legitimate to believe that the sacrament is merely a symbol of Christ’s body and blood. Further, if one has not received valid orders, he cannot confect a valid consecration, and thus there is no Eucharist. Because of this and other theological differences in the way we understand the Eucharist, the Catholic Church has not normally allowed intercommunion with Anglicans. The Eucharist cannot honestly signify unity until that unity exists.
How can the Anglican Church claim any authority when it was founded by the carnal desires of a man, rather than even a theological disagreement like Protestants? I never understood the Anglican Church as a consequence of this, its founding and its authority are something I have always wondered about from an Anglican perspective.
He makes no case for Anglicanism and looks at things from his own perspective. We need to worship God as God wants us to worship him and not worship God the way we think is right. Apostolic succession is so integral to this and Roman Catholic Church has the fullness of the faith. The protestant religion is a heresy. The Catholic faith has passed on an unbroken deposit of faith from Jesus to the Apostles and then subsequent generations. The protestant faith has broken this. Study the early Church fathers for more insight into this.
They do too, so does the Orthodox, they are all apostolic. The thing I CANNOT stand about Christianity is how condescending and condemning everyone is to each other, As if they each all the keys to hell or heaven. Geez. Give me a break. 🙄🙄 get outta here.
Because it DOES have valid apostolic succession through Thomas Cranmer (and if not him, Petrus Codde). And unlike the Romans or the Orthodox, we actually embody Christ's radical love and inclusion.
How do Anglicans interpret Mat 16:18-19 then? There are so many passages where it is clear that Peter was the head of the church and that there is Apostolic succession. Keys are also a great symbol of importance to one's role (Isaiah 22:22-23). Christ also spoke Aramaic so there can't be "word play" between "Petra" and "Petros". The early churches always reported to Rome as well.
Christ's love and will is for those to go and sin no more, to be welcomed in, but to be assisted in the mortification of sin. The episcopal church is an apostate in many cases, enabling and encouraging sin embracing it as normal instead of doing the job of the church and helping other to mortify it.
The Romans are big mad in these comments. But their argument that only they have valid orders is the equivalent of taking the ball and going home bc you don't know how to play with others.
@@MrTzarBomb Gave up theirs? Why? Oh!!!! Because of the one Holy, Almighty and Everlasting God, and his Eternal Word! So Anglicans gave up uselessness and gained usefulness!
He was ordained into a church that did not believe in Real Presence desecrated many existing cactholic churches and set up their own set rules. The anglican bishop was was simply not Roman Catholic. I think he will be trouble if he stilll thinks the Anglican Church was right. A lot of his bishops were reordained into the Ordinariet.😊
The Church that Christ founded is the Catholic Church which has a formal earthly structure established by Christ and which continues under His authority and protection. In the Old Testament we see God's continual involvement in the lives of the Israelites through appointed prophets. God delivered, instructed and admonished the Israelites. He made His motions in a visible, specific and formal way. He always did so through human hands, mouths, feet, minds and wills. God established a law and a means for executing it. In concert with His redemptive act, Jesus did three things that established the framework of His Church. First, He chose humans to carry out His work. He appointed Peter to be the visible head of the Church. Jesus said to Peter, "You are Rock and on this rock I will build my Church." (Matthew 16: 18) Jesus said "build," as in to create a structure. Jesus built His structure on specifically chosen human beings Peter and the apostles. Second, Jesus gave Peter and the apostles the power and authority to carry out His work. "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven."(Matthew 16:19; 18:18) "Receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, whose sins you retain, they are retained."(John 20:23) Third, Jesus gave Peter and the apostles commands as to what that work should be. At the last supper, He commanded, "Do this in memory of Me." (Luke 22:19) He commanded them to "Make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19), and to "Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15) The early Church was structured in a hierarchical manner as it is today. We see in Acts, chapter 15 how the apostles and the elders came together under the leadership of St. Peter to decide the question of what was required of Gentiles. We also see how St. Peter was regarded as the head of the Church when St. Paul, "Went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas [Peter] and remained with him fifteen days." (Galatians 1:18) There is no Scriptural evidence of independent local churches. The Catholic Church is the only church that can claim to have been founded by Christ personally. Every other church traces its lineage back to a mere human person such as Martin Luther or John Wesley. The Catholic Church can trace its lineage back to Jesus Christ who appointed St. Peter as the first pope. This line of popes has continued unbroken for almost 2,000 years. God rules, instructs and sanctifies His people through His Church. Under her teaching office, the Catholic Church preserves the Word of God. She is the custodian, keeper, dispenser and interpreter of teachings of Christ. And she accomplishes this under the protection of the Holy Spirit.
Seems more an emotional and practical reason than one following sound arguments. Also Anglican orders are not considered valid (see other comments here), by the Church while others like Greek Orthodox are so something to consider.
Thank you brother for sharing your thoughts but the motivaion of "and that would cause a lot of personal problems for me" can't be your motivation. It would be difficult but dont follow what your comfort zone tells you. Our hearts are deceitful. The reason to be Catholic is to fully participate in the sacrifice of our Lord. To follow His own words and to fully receive Him in the bread by your faith, the new covenant. If people knew what that really means, everyone would be Catholic. Even most Catholics would become real Catholics. It is no longer I, but Christ, that lives in me. One bread, one body, one Lord of all. Praying for your brother, have a blessed day.
If you feel that the personal problems It would cause you are greater than the importance of belief in the transubstantiation, the role of Mary as mother of the church and intercesor for us before God, the sin of adultery, divorce, as abortion acceptance of same sex marriage and why women cannot be ordained, then sure, continue as anglican. That religión was not initiated by Jesus Christ, but by Henry VIII and his followers. If you are looking for the true religión, then Catholic is The One true bride of Christ.
Question: Did Cardinal Newman say Anglican confession is a valid sacramental confession? Answer: We infer that you mean after Newman was ordained a Catholic priest. We found nothing to support such an assertion, which would contradict Newman’s submitting to ordination as a Catholic priest. If he already had validly received the Sacrament of Holy Orders as an Anglican priest to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass and celebrate the Sacrament of Confession, why would Newman not have vigorously protested that he had no need of priestly ordination, as an Eastern Orthodox priest coming into full communion with the Catholic Church could have rightly done? But Newman didn’t. In addition, operative at the time of Newman’s conversion to Catholicism was Pope Paul IV’s Bull Praeclara Charissimi, which he issued in 1555 and which ruled against the validity of Anglican priestly orders. In his 1896 encyclical Apostolicae Curae, Pope Leo XII cites Paul VI’s bull in definitively reiterating that Anglican orders are invalid: Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void (no. 36, emphasis added). Catholic Answers
Would this argument work the other way around? If an Anglican bishop ordaining you is valid, does it mean a Catholic bishop ordaining a priest is not valid? Does it disprove the pope because you believe in your Anglican ordination?
His answer was all about 'what I thought'. So his orders are based on his personal thoughts. With that kind of thinking he will always remain outside the true Faith. There is nothing in Catholicicism he needs since he has fulfilled all his own authority in himself.
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”- St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251] “There are many other things which most properly can keep me in her [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house”- St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo(Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397] Join the Ordinariate of the Catholic Church like all the smarter bishops have.
I apologize, minister, but you are not validly ordained. For apostolic succession comes from the Catholic Church, which the Anglicans have cut themselves from.
deluded people.... following those who claim to have apostolic succession but ZERO apostolic power and boldness. sick people prayed over by these clergies with zero to small results, even death after being prayed for. no boldness to evangelize people on the street or public place, only in the comfort and safety within a religious building, and even those preaching produce small results in lives being deeply transformed into the image of the Son of God. they only become more religious and fanatic/bigot in their faith
We were ordained before the western catholic church even existed. Whether the antichrist recognizes us has little to do with the material reality of apostolic succession.
I suggest all Christians deeply research their sects history. I was born Catholic but like many in my generation I left the Church to start my life's journey and low and behold 35 years later I felt an unresistable call back to Church. At first I considered evangelical and was dazzled by many online preachers. But then I got this compulsion to research that Church after I noticed certain things in the bible that had to be Catholic there just no other way around it. And after awhile I started to research Martin Luther deeply and I found (much to my common sense) a terrible man. Good fruit comes from good trees as Jesus said , and I really saw no goodness in Luther whatsoever.
But Henry is dead - so - presumably no need for any new wives for him? Therefore no point in persisting in rebellion? Pretty simple: Dead heretic king Henry vs. King of Kings Living God Man Jesus. Two founders - only one is right to follow. This goes for all people living - regardless of which founder seeks to usurp Christ.
deluded people.... following those who claim to have apostolic succession but ZERO apostolic power and boldness. sick people prayed over by these clergies with zero to small results, even death after being prayed for. no boldness to evangelize people on the street or public place, only in the comfort and safety within a religious building, and even those preaching produce small results in lives being deeply transformed into the image of the Son of God. they only become more religious and fanatic/bigot in their faith
@@DrChaunceyBlevins 4 out 5 patriarchs disagree. Hmmm Pope in Rome changes core Trinitarian doctrine unilaterally, and claims supremacy that wasn't a thing until Charlemagne came along (how many bishops from Rome were at the 1st council in Nicea? I'll wait..) And after the split in 1054, should be discuss all the doctrinal changed to the faith Rome kept coming up with in the next several centuries to a point that the current doctrine, beliefs, and worship wouldn't be recognizable even within the Roman Catholic church itself of 200 years ago. Meanwhile Orthodox doctrine, beliefs, and worship continue...no one wants to discuss these differences, just "you need the Pope!" I see plenty of RCC members come over and all say the same thing "I didn't leave the Catholic church, the Catholic church left me." Anglicans....well...a faith built around a Kings lust wasn't going to last...they've been sniffing around Orthodoxy for a while but don't want to accept fully our theology (although the current state in the Anglican Church is probably making the traditional ones think...)
@@frankherbert6476 deluded people.... following those who claim to have apostolic succession but ZERO apostolic power and boldness. sick people prayed over by these clergies with zero to small results, even death after being prayed for. no boldness to evangelize people on the street or public place, only in the comfort and safety within a religious building, and even those preaching produce small results in lives being deeply transformed into the image of the Son of God. they only become more religious and fanatic/bigot in their faith
@@DrChaunceyBlevins deluded people.... following those who claim to have apostolic succession but ZERO apostolic power and boldness. sick people prayed over by these clergies with zero to small results, even death after being prayed for. no boldness to evangelize people on the street or public place, only in the comfort and safety within a religious building, and even those preaching produce small results in lives being deeply transformed into the image of the Son of God. they only become more religious and fanatic/bigot in their faith
Thank you for saying this. I have often wondered how those who swim the tiber can help but see their previous life as anything but a fraud? While remaining Anglican many still question themselves while jurisdiction hoping. The parish I grew up in was APCK, then DHC & now ACC. The next closest parish was also APCK but then passed through ACA on it's way to ACC. I hope the G3 can become the G1 finally and stop all these questions.
One solid reason is that of all Anglo Catholics left Anglicanism, then their denomination suffers. Mainline Protestantism has been suffering from false theology, and it’s best not to cede ground to bad actors.
I mean right off the bat... your Church in their 39 articles rejected the Apostolic teaching of the Early Church Fathers. So I find it very ironic you are saying that in your ordinate, you feel as though your sacraments have apostolic succession.
No, it didn’t. In fact, the Anglican faith tradition in particular went back to the Early Church when discerning theology and liturgy. Certainly closer than the modern RCC.
I’m a cradle Episcopalian that has watched this once noble church become a woke plaything. Sorry, the Ordinariate has provided a connection and path for me to join the true church. One that isn’t remaking God in our image and doesn’t bend to support the zeitgeist of the day.
@@MassachusettsTrainVideos1136 I've been looking into it, but unfortunately I can't find a parish in my state. It's definitely possible I could convert at some point in the future though.
The Church in England was in order until 1896. At that point Pope Leo XIII declared that due to unacceptable changes to the deposit of faith the ordinations in the Church of England were null and void. Now female "priests and bishops" are acceptable. This is strictly prohibited by Scripture. Isn't that enough? In his wisdom, Pope Benedict XVI gave you an honorable way out
You don’t have to believe ur ordinations are invalid. All you have to do is receive conditional ordinations from a Bishop. That might sting to be subject to it, but its worth it to be in the One True Catholic Church. I know many who have and am a member of the Ordinariate myself.
@@puremercury the church has always regarded schismatics, as not part of the true Church. Tehre can not be 3 Catholic churches, a few orthodox anglican, eastern orthodox and Catholic. That is a heresy. There is only one Catholic Church.
@@puremercury you side stepped everything i just said. Did the Church teach that “the Church” is without hierarchy, that can be in schism with eachother, and have differing opinions. Or did he create ONE physical church? Because if you believe the Protestant invention of a universal church being within several different denominations with theological differences, that something simply no church father or saint, or theologian ever held until then. Did Christ set up one Church or not simple question?
@King 🤴🏻 No one said the Church was without hierarchy. Bishop, presbyter, deacon. There is no Supreme Pontiff. I also addressed directly everything you wrote.
Anglicans: valid Apostolic succession Also Anglicans: all of Apostolic sees teach heresy, so we’re AMA or some other Anglican group Me: so where exactly is the succession then?
Catholic POV: it is like choosing the the body of the Christ in his true church VS his personal preferences. hmmm... Truly Humans have freewill. Let's just pray if God calls him back, he will be in His church.
It amuses me how so many Roman Catholics are so against Anglicans. And i have to wonder how much of it is purely because of the fact that Anglicans don't follow the Pope. Of course Roman Catholics are going to be taught/instructed to feel a specific way about Anglicans by the Pope (whether directly, or indirectly via their priests or whoever, because either way it stems from the same place and reason). And of course Roman Catholics will obey and, in turn, insult and criticize and mock etc etc etc Anglicans, because Roman Catholics worship/follow/obey the Pope rather than God and Jesus themselves. 🙄 Roman Catholics seemingly have no idea just how predictable they can be. Also. The Pope and the Vatican, the head of the Catholic Church, were originally established in Rome..... the same place that not only executed/crucified Jesus Christ, but ALSO made it their mission to wipe out as many Christians as they possibly could..... Yet they suddenly became essentially the "Headquarters" for Catholicism? It's never made any sense to me whatsoever. We were explicitly told not to judge our fellow man, as that is solely God's job. Yet here y'all are, judging and criticizing and sometimes CONDEMNING anyone who isn't specifically Roman Catholic. How can y'all be The One True Church when y'all don't even listen to God OR Jesus, and instead do and believe whatever the Pope or your local priests tell you to? Even when it goes directly against God and Jesus themselves? At least while Anglicans consider theirs A valid church, they don't deem themselves the only one to exist. Not only do Roman Catholics completely disregard God's orders to us, but y'all also seem determined to turn people away apparently. I've always heard that we're supposed to spread the word, and help others find faith. But all my life, I've only ever seen the Catholic Church do the exact opposite, even not caring in the slightest how many people they shut out and turned away from God sometimes by attitude alone, when those people had been curious and open to giving all of it a chance - meaning, most importantly, giving GOD a chance - and the arrogance, self righteousness, and condescending attitudes of the members gave a bad impression and only ensured that person would never come back or try again. The exact OPPOSITE of what is supposed to happen, which is welcoming newcomers AND outsiders AND EVEN non believers, and accepting them with open arms. We're supposed to listen with open ears, our minds and hearts both ready to listen and hear their questions as well as their problems preventing them from having already come over, and assist them, answer questions, and guide them. Yet i personally have yet to see Roman Catholics do any of that. The vibe I've ever gotten from RC (and I'm not the only one) is of some unbelievably exclusive club, which requires an unnecessary number of hoops to jump through to become a member, and looks down on those not already a member. Like those country clubs for extremely wealthy people, that you have to pay a ridiculously large amount of money to join along with even more ridiculous amounts every year to maintain membership, and it's just a place to go and talk about how much better they are than everyone else who doesn't have enough money to pay to join. That's the same vibe that I've always gotten, as have so many others. That's nowhere NEAR what Jesus taught.
The Roman Catholic Church & the Eastern Orthodox Church are fallen, need to repent & submit to the divine wisdom given through the Protestant Reformation. This is the faith of the apostles.
As a former “classical continuing” Anglican deacon who swam the Tiber, I can tell you it’s not about believing one is a fraud. Many Anglican orders are irregular at the very best. When I accepted that fact of truth, I found great peace in knowing the truth.
Pope Leo XIII put the kibosh on that Anglican ordained ministry thing I’m afraid. He claimed they are “utterly null and void.” Also, there is the difference in the REAL presence Christ in the Eucharist. Anglicans believe the Eucharist to be symbolic and deny true Catholic transubstantiation. Read more of Saint John Henry Newman, pray about it, and you’ll eventually swim.
So he is holding out for the validity of Anglican orders. At least he makes it clear where he stands. Other Anglican priests have sneaked off to Utrecht for a top-up “Dutch touch” second ordination. I am no theologian, and get baffled by the implications of this.
deluded people.... following those who claim to have apostolic succession but ZERO apostolic power and boldness. sick people prayed over by these clergies with zero to small results, even death after being prayed for. no boldness to evangelize people on the street or public place, only in the comfort and safety within a religious building, and even those preaching produce small results in lives being deeply transformed into the image of the Son of God. they only become more religious and fanatic/bigot in their faith
We currently attend a G3 Anglo-Catholic parish. The Old Catholic co-consecrations are the only reason I still think there is validity in the Continuing movement. That said, I'm starting to lean more towards Orthodoxy.
@david_porthouse that's not an Oecumenical council. The Filioque is one of the main reasons we are considering Orthodoxy over Papism. The other issue being, of course, run-away papal supremacy that, in my opinion from the historical reviews and Father's I've read, grew way beyond what the early church recognized.
The Anglican Church was founded on the foundation of lust. You should make yourself part of the Church Jesus Christ started, not the church founded by a rebellious King who split because he couldn’t be an adulterer.
But if you think about it Anglicanism isn’t “valid” bc it was started by King Henry VIII when he was not allowed a divorce to his wife Catherine. A real example of “man made” religion
So in the end, HE believes he received something… but the thing is not our beliefs but the fact, the truth that we have to accept…and being in a church that the pope is the king of england is very strange fact
I don't know why this came up in my feed, but do you all hear yourselves? NONE of this matters brothers and sisters! Christ abolished this way of life. Follow Christ, that's it! Build Christian communities, help the poor, widows and orphans, visit the sick and imprisoned, spread the glorious news of the gospel of Christ to repent and believe! Then baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit! WE are His a church now brothers and sisters! WE are ALL Saints! Hallelujah! You have brought yourselves RIGHT BACK to the church of the Pharisees with your rules, regulations, organizations, institutions, etc. My Lord God Almighty, please show them YOUR truth only, let them see and hear Father, release them from these chains of organized religion so they may be completely free in Your perfect Son, Christ our Savior! Praise be to you our Lord God Almighty! Glory to You always! In Christ's name, amen.
If it’s “follow Jesus and that’s it” then why would I listen to you if I believed, for example, that Christ and Lucifer are the same person, or if I believed that Christ is not God, like the Mormons. In other words, what authority do you have to tell me I’m wrong if I say I’m “just following Jesus”
@@IlluminatiCheckerboardflooring of course my comment is for people that believe Christ is God. The entire thread is speaking of sacraments and regulations and such in their church. I also believe the very first thing I said was that I had no idea why this post was on my thread. Hence I don't know this channel personally. If you personally don't believe Christ is God, why are YOU here? I can see how it came across mine, 75% of what I watch on here is Christian. But why you? Also, why do you feel the need to pick me out of the crowd? If you know anything about the bible, you know exactly why I said what I said. So, what's your agenda?
@@Jesusfreak322 I do confess Christ is God, I am an Orthodox Christian and what I’m doing is calling out a large flaw in your argument. You said, “follow Christ and that’s it”, but that doesn’t tell the person you’re saying that too who Christ is and how/why to follow him. If someone reads the Bible and came away with a belief like I said above, by what authority is your interpretation more valid than theirs?
@@IlluminatiCheckerboardflooring that's because I'm speaking to people that supposedly already know Christ. This isn't a video or comment thread of non believers, so I shouldn't have to explain who Christ is at all. I'm trying to help other Christians (people who claim to already know Christ) see there is nothing biblical about remaining in this type of church or organized religion. What did I say that wasn't biblical? Why do you consider yourself "orthodox" Christian and not just Christian? The word means to follow Christ, not follow an organization. Again, what is your agenda here?
deluded people.... following those who claim to have apostolic succession but ZERO apostolic power and boldness. sick people prayed over by these clergies with zero to small results, even death after being prayed for. no boldness to evangelize people on the street or public place, only in the comfort and safety within a religious building, and even those preaching produce small results in lives being deeply transformed into the image of the Son of God. they only become more religious and fanatic/bigot in their faith
@@vtino4825 Dear friend, your flurry of words doesn't change any iota of Truth, that is, Anglican Ordinations remain invalid. "Ad tuendam Fidem" by John Paul ii. Roma locuta est, causa finita est.
@@shashikamanoj1160 your words don't even mean a thing. following man-made religions (like what you are doing all along) is really foolish. look at the pathetic members of Catholicism, not even half of them are truly converted to the Living Messiah and repented from their sins. that's why their billion numbers do not shake the evil people and rulers of this world. well, even many Catholic pedofilic clergies and bishops themselves are possessed by demons, sexually abusing thousands of boys, and the popes never acknowledge this evil that is still going on..
