Відео

I launched some questions yesterday evening. I thought the answers were thorough and a few times at the end of the answer, Cathy encouraged me to go to a local church and speak with clergy.

I wish the Baptist church didn't exist. It dilutes Methodist Church theology. I know this because I've been to Methodist churches in Arkansas and they act like Methobaptist. And the Baptist denomination is constantly splintering and being schismatic and I find it annoying and don't like how individualistic it is and how Americanized anti tradition it is. It's conservative americanly but liberal christianly speaking. The United States South was more wealthy when it was more Methodist and collectivistic in my opinion.

Meanwhile the original Lutheran, Anglican and Reformed churches: 🏳️‍🌈 Nothing to do with that: Catholics 🤝 Evangelicals

The real reason for this movement of orthodoxy is because of a society in the orthodox roman rite who the modernists threw out of the church for not changing their faith to the novos ordo the society went threw something that is very similar to the rise of the macabees by the way the canon lawyers of the catholic church told the novos ordo that they remained canonicaly irregular by necessity of defence of the faith (u tube sspx and the macabees connection )...its because of them and the 1000s of young men they have that people are starting to see a real intrest in orthodox forms !

58:54 Luke 18:9-14 9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get. The Pharisee is thanking God because he thinks he is better than the tax collector because of his works

Wow, thanks for spoiling Lord of the Rings for me. Just kidding. I’m here to ask for time stamps. Good content!

I visited my Anglican campus ministry the other day and it felt like I was essentially told that Anglicanism is great for people who like Catholic aesthetics but don't want to obey teachings on sexuality. Very nice people but not a mentality that would make me a better man.

Yeah and that’s a faulty argument. They may have an argument against the schismatic catholics as far as accretions go but they weren’t familiar enough with Orthodoxy to have any proper arguments against it. If you want more info on why protestants are wrong and have actually twisted the faith into an unrecognizable form you can start with the book Rock and Sand by Father Josiah Trenham.

Yes.

Sure, but classic magisterial Protestant churches are basically extinct in most places. (By ‘most places’ I am referring to little no-name cities like mine) Most people have the option of liberal Protestant, evangelical Protestant, or iffy nominal Roman Catholicism.

I was born and raised Roman Catholic. Since leaving the RCC I've spent 30+ years in congregational Protestant churches, and then 5 years ago the Holy Spirit led me to an ACNA parish because I'd been telling Him how much I missed traditional hymns and more reading of the word in services. Anglican sacramentology is still somewhat of a sticking point for me, though. I'd like to point something out about the two instances in the Bible where someone mentions remission of sins in relation to baptism. One is a story recounted by Paul concerning the aftermath of his Damascus Road experience: Act 22:12 “And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, Act 22:13 came to me, and standing by me said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ And at that very hour I received my sight and saw him. Act 22:14 And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; Act 22:15 for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. Act 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ Notice that Paul is recounting what Ananias said. Ananias was a devout believer, and I have no doubt that Paul correctly tells what Ananias spoke. But I think it would be a mistake to assume that the statement of Ananias was an infallible utterance, or that it necessarily was a theologically correct utterance. (Some people said things which the Bible faithfully records, but which we know to be erroneous in some way or other; a prime example would be the statements made by Job's "friends.") The other point regarding this statement is that "wash away your sins" could relate to _either_ "be baptized" or "calling on his name." Commas didn't exist in the original manuscript, so it is a translator's supposition that "wash away your sins" should be related to the former rather than the latter. To call on the name of Jesus (a name which meant "he saves" in Hebrew) would have meant that Paul should trust in Jesus as his Savior from sin, and I would argue that through faith Paul's sins were washed away. The other instance is found in Acts. Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Act 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” One could make a similar case that Peter's words are accurately recorded but not necessarily well-polished to theological or doctrinal perfection. But I think a better argument can be found by looking at the original Greek. When Peter said, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,” he spoke the word, “repent,” in the aorist direct imperative tense, which gave it the authoritative ring of a direct command. But Peter spoke, “be baptized,” in the indirect passive imperative tense, which does not give it the same direct-command implication. Moreover, the preposition “for” in the phrase, “for the remission of sins,” here means, “for the purpose of identifying you with... (the remission of sins). _(Source: Greek Bible scholar, Spiros Zodhiates Th.D.)_ This is consistent with the interpretation that the people were to repent and receive Christ, then to be baptized and show their repentance outwardly to others so they could be identified as forgiven ones. Zodhiates goes on to say, “Repentance is something that concerns an individual and God, while baptism involves others. That is why _baptistheto_ is in the passive, indicating that one does not baptize himself but is baptized by another, usually in the presence of others. Repentance, however, is an act taking place within man’s heart as the Holy Spirit energizes the sinner.” Roman Catholics like to quote Acts 2:39 as evidence for paedobaptism: "the promise is for you and for your children..." However, they overlook the rest of the statement: the promise is also "for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." If we assume that a particular infant is 'called by God to himself', we are assuming that the child will grow up to be a spiritually regenerated disciple of Jesus... but we cannot know that any more than we can know whether a particular "far off person" is predestined to be a Christian. If we can force regeneration upon an infant who neither has faith nor the ability to consent to baptism, then by the same logic we could force regeneration upon any adult (in a far-off land or otherwise) by baptizing him even though he neither has faith nor gives consent. (This sounds very much like LDS' practice of baptism in absentia!) If we look at the sequence of events in Acts 2, we see: 1. Peter preached the Gospel of Christ crucified for our sins 2. Some people heard the Gospel and 3. They believed: they were "cut to the heart" and repented. 4. They asked, “what shall we do?” In other words: we believe you; what’s the next step? 5. Peter answered, “Repent” (for the benefit of any who had not yet done so) “and be baptized...” This sequence suggests that baptism was meant by Peter to be for the people who had heard the Gospel, had believed the Gospel, and had repented of their sin of unbelief. Thus Peter was unlikely to have been endorsing paedobaptism when he used the phrase, "for your children." Rather, the promises of forgiveness and eternal life are for any person whom the Lord calls to repentance and faith. I did think your discussion of the mikveh ritual was an interesting hypothesis, and I don't doubt that the mindset of Jewish traditions was a strong influence in the thinking of the First Century Christians. I can relate to it, since my rector has stated that one way of looking at paedobaptism is as a welcoming into the local church community, and that another way to think of it is as the parents' faith being imputed to their infant. Either and both of which still necessitate, however, the child's coming to personal faith in Christ when he is old enough to understand; and there's "the rub," for this latter necessity reveals the fact that baptism really doesn't instrumentally regenerate anyone. We are saved by grace through faith, not by grace through baptism (Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:1-14). We are counted righteous through faith, not through baptism (Romans 3:10-5:19). Those who believe in Christ, not those who are baptized, have eternal life (John 6:47). This is why I think paedobaptism is somewhat _dangerous:_ it can fool the paedobaptized person into thinking that he is redeemed and regenerated _because he has been baptized._ As a former Roman Catholic I see tons and tons of RCs who think this way, and my concern is that paedobaptized Protestants might become similarly misled.

In Mexico many people are 5+ generations Catholic. Yes, Mexico is not doing a good job at upholding the faith today.

In what world does the “classical” evangelical and (lol) “magisterial” Protestantism exceed practically? Was it the American nationalism or the slave trade? Your rebuttal is “no true Scotsmen” endorsed slavery.. and which is the same thing the Catholics say.. Also we just gonna ignore the reformers horrendous teachings like Luther and the Jews and double predestination by Calvin? Submit to the one true church of Jesus Christ. Quit putting yourself as an idol before Christ’s church trusting yourself and your own rationality- trust the God’s work in his Catholic Church. By the way Americans- orthodox and Catholic Church is the standard globally, the Protestants are in fact the odd ones out globally

Uhhhhh BASED?!?

44:32 this is actually a standard Reformed opinion. See The Marrow Controversy and Lordship Salvation views.

This video is hilarious. Clearly, you have a biased that is not entirely accurate towards the Episcopal Church teaching.

Credit where credit is due, the Evangelicals are much better at outreach than both Anglicans and Catholics. Even in England, Christian immigrants usually end up in an Evangelical community rather than attending the National Church unless they already are Anglicans.

I see you're in the denial stage 😂

Easily one of the most biased videos I’ve seen

My sister in law converted from Catholicism to Big Eva while she was dating my brother. (Also Big Eva). I guess it was because Big Eva seemed more authentic to her. I asked her if she wanted to know the history and theology of Protestantism, ya know, the faith she converted to, and she said no. I highly doubt she’ll return to Rome, but her future children might. Big Eva is shallow and overly emotional.

I’ve always found it odd that Catholics take John 6 so seriously and literally yet only eat the Body which directly contradicts what Jesus said when he told the crowd that eternal life comes from eating his flesh AND drinking his blood like you pointed out. And yes I know that Catholics will point to the council of Trent and other sources within the Roman tradition where they decided that the body is enough but at the end of the day that isn’t what Christ said and it really wouldn’t take much to distribute the blood as well just as Lutherans, Orthodox, and Anglicans do. Especially considering the fact that they used to distribute both in the earlier Roman Catholic Church. They changed how the sacrament is done and administered

Good video

Rock, paper, scissors

The Seventh-day Adventist church is the only classical protestant church. Do a deep dive into what Adventists teach about Babylon (3rd Angel's Message)

Fr, here in Brazil is the same story, but we're late in theology then the people are in "Catholic phase"

This is my story lol - except I’m becoming a classical Protestant instead of Roman Catholic or Orthodox

Do you beliece the human authors have to be the traditional authors or do you hold to more modern biblical views i.e. john written by a group rather than a single person.

Based video 🗿

Fr Ben Crosby wrote a good substack article about ecclesiastical gaslighting and "mean what you say" in TEC

Thank you for putting out this video. I'm former Protestant, now 2 years into Anglican (APA) church. I love it so much, our liturgy, priest Fr Josh, and our Bishop Chad Jones. I listen to both E orthodox and R Catholic teaching on YT. Get a lot out of them, but ALWAYS they make it clear that theirs is the ONLY way to salvation. I do not agree with this, and quite frankly, it hurts my heart. How can they be so exclusive and divisive? Also legalistic.

Episcopal church Reconquista wen?

Regarding universalism, I would imagine that one principled universalist might argue that all humans enter into purgatory at death, and that eternal life is contingent upon their eventual repentance and acceptance of God. We ought to repent in this life because our whole life from birth to death is a "total act of our being", which determines our place in heaven. It's not about whether we get into heaven at all as much as it is about whether we desire to receive more deeply the grace of God. This could be seen as similar to a "soft" view of hell, where rather than a dualistic heaven vs. hell there are gradations of individual participation in the divine, and even the lowest individual is still in "heaven" in a sense.

0:58 Of course it would be Cathy 😂 Barbara is a close second in my book

Interesting. The bot is more orthodox than TEC!

So the same church that flies the flag of antichrist has made itself an idol in order to argue with non-believers about its heresy? Just one more heresy. Repent.

I played arpund with it a bit and was pleasantly surprised on the whole. Much better than I expected. It refused to give me online absolution, which an earlier Roman Catholic attempt got caught doing. When I asked it about the Reformed Episcopal Church it's answer was more accurate and charitable than I'd have expected.

I've been attending a Episcopal church that I would have to say is between moderate and conservative.

You should ask 39 questions.

Bruh Cathy really sold the bag within the first three minutes ngl

Cathy has a based side to her 🔥

It would be interesting to know where TryTank is pulling info for its more progressive beliefs. These probably arent official resolutions, which carefully avoid negating traditional church teachings in order to make space for remaining traditionalists (ex. With Marriage, the language is "lifelong union of two persons" and does not explicitly contridict the language of the 1979 BCP "one man and one woman")

"It's kinda based" it merely said that you can't be an atheist and a priest

17:05 That verse literally talks about what they embrace as important as leading to not inheriting salvation. I would say that perhaps they are exhorting inclusivity to draw sinners (which we all are) to Christ but there is a lack of sanctification as evident with unrepentant clergy.

What is being danced around here and throughout Christianity is the idea that "we have things we believe to be true" not "This is fact" (ie Jesus is God) I wouldn't call this ai based because episcopalian belief and this ai isn't actually a)following it's own internal logic and b)following the Word. I hate this. I wish they would come back to the Word.

.... and that is the problem with Protestants. They cherry pick what parts of scripture they will follow and will even sanctify sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. Came back home to the real Church, the Catholic Church.

That went south fast 💀 (with the gender and sexual orientation stuff)

4:40. God does NOT send anyone to Hell. People send themselves to Hell BY THEIR CHOICES, BELIEFS, AND ACTIONS!

Cathy helped me with some questions I had about ecumenical dialogue so I like it.