Thank you, Sean, for brilliantly expounding Article XIX. Also for greatly exemplifying the use of the "forgotten leg" of the '3-legged-stool', i.e. reason.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj I haven't seen modus tolens deniers myself, but there must be enough that he felt the need to explain why modus tolens arguments aren't fallacious in two different videos. And I've seen people say that other arguments and argument forms are fallacious based on trying to fit the argument to a fallacy rather than thinking critically. Common fallacies thrown around like this are No True Scotsmans and Slippery Slopes.
Man, this video is so good, but I had to get off the train with you on contraception. Your reasoning throughout most of this video was so tight and so good. I gotta say, though, I think you missed the mark on contraception.
Yes... I believe the Tradition (both East and West) has consistently interpreted Scripture as prohibiting contraception, quite apart from the claims that Rome makes about her magisterium. The church's teaching only became obscured after we became thoroughly confused in the 60s.
I've watched a lot of Catholicism rebuttal videos, and this is honestly one of the best. Normally people just list off 10 or 20 of their unbiblical doctrines, but you made clear logical statements that actually get to the core of the issue, and proved each undeniably. Well done.
Awesome video! As a new convert, this is something to think about, but I really don't think I made the wrong decision. If I am wrong, I hope God firmly but gently rebukes me, but if you are wrong, then I hope he firmely but gently rebukes you, and take you to his true church. Good video as always 👍.
@@jeremiahong248 I've never claimed to be a Christ, nor do I have anything even remotely resembling the gift of prophecy, nor have I performed a miraculous sign or wonder. Major L of a comment, man. I'm not quite sure what you intend to accomplish with a comment like that. It doesn't move dialogue forward at all.
Doesn’t session 13 of Constance not enjoy infallible status due to it being preside over by an anti-pope? If so, is your argument still valid due to it nevertheless representing the authentic magisterium (per Lumen Gentium & Professio Fidei), which ought to receive religious submission of mind/will?
The Roman doctrines on marriage and birth control have led to much social damage in Latin America, including unhealthy homes with terribles dynamics that lead to emotionally scarred children. There are more examples I can bring up, not from reading them in cold articles, but rather I have seen them in my life in Latin America.
You do realize the Catholic Church played a major role in the development of Latin America? I'm willing to bet it has led to more positive impacts for society their as a whole, rather than negative.
So I believe the practice of only administrating the eucharist in one kind is still in practice. A Catholic Church in my neighborhood still does this. A friend of mine who attends there said the priest qualifies this by saying that the blood is pressent in the flesh, so it's only necessary to partake of the bread.
@@anglicanaesthetics ah yes. I didn't mean to communicate that this is an exclusive practice in Catholism. Merely that it is still practiced in some congregations. Thanks for the clarification
Time stamps please. Please do another video on Transubstantiation. Have you read William Perkins A Reformed Catholic yet? You will find even more Roman errors.
What do you think is acceptable when it comes to icon veneration, and why do you believe this against the 39 Articles? It's one thing to respect icons as you would a picture of family, and believe that icons can inspire us to follow after the lives of the saints, but it's another thing to believe that it is acceptable to salute them, kiss them, bow to them, and speak to them, and say that honor given to images passes on to the person imaged.
>The Case Against Roman Catholicism Guess I’ll just be Melkite Catholic, then. Or Romanian Catholic. Or Maronite Catholic. Or Malankar Catholic. Or Ruthenian Catholic.
That's quite pedantic :\ I think you know what I mean--church's that tale the Roman pontiff to be the magisterial head. We do not concede title "the Catholic Church" to you, as Protestants.
Premise one already has a problem at 0:28, if Jesus said that the devil won't prevail against the true Church. What Church did he mean? Not the invisible Church mantra that most Protestants teach. You may say it's not the Catholic Church and that's fair but what Church did Christ start? If there is no other institutional Church, then it's time to declare Christianity a false religion founded upon a false premise. Now, you're an Anglican so I am not sure of what you believe when it comes to the institutional Church and those outside of it but it's a watered-down version of the original Anglican reformers.
Not sure how what I believe is a watered down version of what the Anglican divines believed, but I'll answer We believe as Protestants that the devil hasn't prevailed over the visible church. The visible church is where the Gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments are rightly administered. These are actions in space and time and thus visible. Hence, we think of Lutheranism and Presbyterianism (for example) as different organizations of the one visible church; they are not competing churches (as John Cosin, Richard Hooker, and other Anglicans argued). So you're begging the question by demanding that Christ's promise must apply to one institutional expression of the visible church.
@@anglicanaestheticsthe question then is “how do you determine where the right gospel is preached and the right sacraments are administered”? It’s just begging the question. “Where can I find the true church?” “You can find the true church where the true church is!”
@thejerichoconnection3473 Right, so how do we know where the Gospel is preached? Who preaches the Gospel as Scripture teaches it. But one will say, "who gets to say what Scripture teaches"? But that can be asked about *any literary text*. In other words, if you say "the magisterium", we all interpret language--including the language of the magisterium. Do we need an infallible interpreter to interpret the magisterium? And the interpretation of that interpretation? That leads to an infinite regress (see my video on Roman Catholic epistemology). So we actually have to dialogue about what Scripture teaches to see whose reasons for taking the text to mean certain things stands up to scrutiny.
@@anglicanaesthetics you approach the problem from a scripture alone point of view, which is neither biblical nor historical. The gospel is not about interpreting a book. We are not Muslim. The gospel has been preached continuously with no interruptions and no alterations in the early church (that evolved to be what we know as the Catholic Church) through apostolic succession. That’s where the gospel was from the very beginning and that’s where the gospel will ever be because that’s where the deposit of faith was preserved. The Bible is a precious gift given by God to the Church and through the Church to help the Church spread the gospel. It was not given as a replacement of the Church.
P1- Jesus gives the free gift of salvation P2- Jesus says the apostles can "retain a person's sins". C- the apostolic authority (if valid) can withhold a certain gift. Also if concomitance is true... Then the WHOLE gift is being received and what is being denied is a *species*. That would be like saying baptisms must be done with pouring rather than immersion (Let's say it is an extreme drought) Denies the gift of baptism. The person is still receiving the FULL efficacious gift of baptism. It is just a particular expression that is denied. In the case of a sacrament being withheld- it can be argued that is not prudent. But can it really be argued that it is not licit to withhold a sacrament from a person for their own long term good? Like the man in 1 Corinthians. Or a modern day person promoting abortion. Should they not be denied for their own good? Or an alcoholic from the wine? Revelation 2:26-27 implies that the Church with the rod of iron; indeed can speak with Christ's authority. And this would include his gifts: “The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father.” (Plus the iron rod/earthen pots image relates in Jeremiah to the destruction of Jerusalem)
I'm not a Roman Catholic (for some of the reasons you lay out here, such as communion in both kinds and the irrationality of their ideas of temporal punishment), but I think you made some poor arguments on a few topics that deserve some pushback. 1) On the question of transubstantiation, I've read a bit into this issue, and what moves me is that this was never a matter of controversy between the East and the West, even in the medieval period where the most minor and trivial differences between them were fought over endlessly. The fiercely anti-Latin 18th-century Orthodox theologian Eustratios Argenti, who argued for the necessity of rebaptizing Roman Catholic converts, wrote a whole treatise on the Eucharist where he discusses the differences between Latin and Greek beliefs on the Eucharist, never brings up transubstantiation as a difference and expresses his belief in it. Athanasios Parios, another 18th-century Orthodox theologian, wrote a theological work in which he calls Thomas Aquinas one of the greatest enemies of the church, yet in that same work, he affirms transubstantiation right down to marveling over how God can make the accidents of bread and wine exist without their substance. Modern Orthodox theologians such as Schmemann, who want to exaggerate their differences with Roman Catholicism, have obscured this fact. Let me grant your argument that some of the early Church fathers did not believe in transubstantiation, though. Even still, I don't think this is a defeater for the Roman Catholic Church requiring it as an article of faith necessary to salvation. There are numerous examples of the Church allowing certain opinions on a topic before it investigates that topic further and comes to a decision where those opinions are no longer tolerated. For example, the Christology of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, two men who were highly regarded during their lifetimes and which never earned them rebuke while they were alive, was anathematized later when the Church investigated Christological matters more deeply. The issue of rebaptizing heretics is another such case. Respected men such as Cyprian and Firmilllian of Caesarea held a rigorist position on this issue, which the Church later rejected as heresy. Vincent of Lerins remarks in his Commonitorium that even though Cyprian was a saint, the Donatists who later held his position on rebaptism are damned heretics. Origen and Marius Victorinus believed in the preexistence of souls without controversy during their lifetimes though the Fifth Ecumenical Council later anathematized this as incompatible with Christian orthodoxy. 2) I think your position on how remarriage after divorce was legitimate in the Old Testament and so it's wrong for Roman Catholics to forbid them proves too much. Polygamous marriages were also permitted in the Old Testament yet they are not recognized by your Anglican church or any other Christian church. The whole point of Jesus's rebuke to the Pharisees is that such things were a concession to the weakness of the Israelites but they are not legitimate and now that Christ has sent the Holy Spirit to empower believers to live how they were meant to they are no longer necessary. I have looked into the question of divorce and remarriage among the Church Fathers only a little bit but I think you misrepresent the case. Citing David Bentley Hart's article is a mark against your credibility, since he makes the laughably false claim that none of the Fathers though marriage was worthy of theological reflection and he more or less ignores the influence of Byzantine imperial pressure on the Eastern church's divorce laws as well as the fact that Origen expressly condemns the practice of the hierarchs who allow separated people to remarry as contrary to the Scripture. If you are going to take episcopal toleration of something as evidence of legitimate theological disagreement you could justify just about anything. I think Hart is biased by his vendetta against traditionalist Catholics. Scholars on this subject such as Henri Crouzel and the evangelical Anglican Gordon Wenham have done historical surveys that make the Roman Catholic position seem quite historically credible. 3) Your argument against Humanae Vitae proves too much, as it seems to object to natural law reasoning as a whole which would take much of the classical Protestant ethical tradition down as well. Your argument that artificial birth control is in line with the natural periods of infertility is incoherent, as many birth control drugs disrupt the natural functioning of the body and lead to various negative side effects. Being able to render oneself permanently sterile at will goes against the natural telos of the body. That being said, I don't agree with Humanae Vitae that the use of such methods is always wrong. I think a better argument is that the natural law does not require that each and every single act of sexual intercourse much be open to life but only that the broader practice of sexual relations must be.
Thanks for your thorough engagement and for focusing on the arguments! In reply: 1.) Interestingly, transubstantiation was only codified at the Synod of Jerusalem. In my video "did the early Church teach transubstantiation", I show that there just wasn't agreement on the issue for the first 1000 years of Christianity. That's why Duns Scotus, for instance, acknowledges other views as being popular. Now, why is this problematic to require it for salvation? For instance, didn't some fathers have questionable Christology? This is a good question, and deserves more elaboration (I might do a video on this). If something is required for salvation, and if Rome really is *just* expositing (as Rome claims in Dei Verbum), not adding, then there has to be something in the apostolic teaching itself which would mean that a denial of some claim x would contradict the apostolic teaching. Take Nicea, for instance. We don't know that all of the fathers had a fully Nicene trinitarian theology prior to Nicaea. Yet you and I would agree that Christians who deny Nicaea (and that's key--they *deny* it, and so know what they're denying) are damned. Why? Because the affirmations at Nicaea are logical consequences of what we know from apostolic teaching, such that apostolic teaching is denied if the Trinity is denied. E.g. the apostle Paul tells us to confess Jesus as "Lord"; he quotes Joel 2:32 to tell us what he means in Romans 10:9-13. He applies a text about YHWH to Jesus--so the confession of Jesus as Lord is the confession of Jesus as the one to whom texts about YHWH apply. Yet he's distinct from the Father and Spirit per other texts--and so forth. So it can't be the case that Rome just says "x is now essential to believe for salvation" if the denial of x doesn't undermine anything in the apostolic teaching itself, and Rome is really just an expositor of that teaching as she claims to be. 2.) So yes, what of divorce and re-marriage? You're right that we condemn polygamy as sin. But that doesn't mean polygamists have *invalid marriages*. That's actually a really key distinction in missional contexts. We would bar polygamists from leadership in the church so that the community imitates the presbyters, and polygamy eventually dies out. But we wouldn't consider those invalid marriages, but marriages that have sin tainting them. That seems to be the best synthesis of the OT. With DBH, that seems fallacious. Just because a scholar makes a false claim about x doesn't mean he's wrong about y. I specifically cited a paragraph where he includes historical sources that are pertinent to the question at hand: divorce and remarriage. 3.) In fact, I do think there is much that needs to be rethought about natural law. Though most natural law scholars agree at this point that there isn't just "one natural law tradition." There are natural law traditions, plural. Scripture certainly affirms some *sort* of natural law, insofar as the law is written on everyone's heart. But the Thomistic framing of it seems problematic, for the reasons I listed in the video. That said, I don't see how denying the proposition "you cannot contravene the natural telos of x for some higher order good" makes all forms of natural law unusable.
@@anglicanaesthetics Thank you for the reply 1) It is not always immediately obvious what is logically contradictory to Apostolic teaching. If it was, the long Trinitarian and Christological controversies would have been unnecessary. I doubt the Apostles and the pre-Nicene fathers had Maximus the Confessor's Dyothelitism formulated in their mind, but ultimately, the Church required it as necessary to salvation because it was the only logically consistent way to make sense of the Incarnation. Rome claims that transubstantiation is the only logically consistent way to make sense of the Real Presence. If they are correct about that, then it is hardly problematic that they require it as necessary to salvation. 2) I brought up Hart's false claims because they undermine the reliability of his interpretation of the rest of the evidence. Crouzel has offered alternative interpretations of the Council of Arles and of Basil that are in line with Roman Catholic teaching. The other evidence he brings up is from the Byzantine period, which, due to the pressures of imperial policy, can hardly be seen as consubstantial with Apostolic teaching. I objected to your citing of Hart as showing that the Roman Catholic case is obviously wrong and seemingly ignoring the significant scholarly debate on this subject. Your position that divorce and polygamy are sinful but that remarriages after divorce and polygamous marriages are valid seems incoherent. If a behavior is sinful, then it is morally obligatory to cease and desist from it, which is impossible if polygamous marriages and divorces are valid. Societies might extend tolerance of remarriage and polygamy for a variety of reasons (as seen in the Old Testament), but that isn't the same as accepting them as valid marriages.
Not RC but interested prot and I'll share some thoughts: 1. EO, RCC, and OO all affirm the theology of transubstantiation. I've dialogued w Daniel Kakish, an OO (specifically Syriac) subdeacon and he states that in their liturgy and theology they 100% believe in transubstantiation. AA claims the Synod of Jerusalem is the only context where it is codified. It is in the Catechism of Peter Mogila, accepted by the church, the Longer Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow. It is clear that a change occurs in the bread and wine according to the official theology. I think it's clear that when you actually press for consistency all three traditions (so majority of Christians) believe in transubstantiation
@@Jack-yh9st He's carefully researched valid points behind doctrines in the Roman Rite. I for one, would have loved to have stayed in the Roman Rite but there are just too many nefarious and corruptive practices. Look at the points in this video, for how shockingly harmful some of them are to human souls.
Are you saying Matthew 16 authorizes the church to restrict what Jesus has permitted--to say "no you may not under pain of damnation" to where Jesus has said "you may"?
@@anglicanaesthetics Yes because thats what binding and loosing means. Whatever he binds on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever he looses on earth will be loosed in Heaven. And he alone has the keys. Paul shows us what binding and loosing looks like 1 Corinthians 11 where he teaches that the Eucharist is not to be taken in an unworthy manner. How do you know if you are unworthy? Matthew 18:15-18, which all protestants are in violation of. And again in Acts 15, without going to scripture as their highest authority, the Apostles AND their successors make a decree effective on the entire church and they explain that anyone who obeys them can be sure that they are doing what is right. Thats why following the teachings of the magisterium is doing what is right. One that does not get talked about enough is Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 where for lying to Peter, they are killed. Did the Holy Spirit kill them? Did the Holy Spirit kill them through Peter? Did Peter allow the Holy Spirit to kill them? No matter how you look at it, i wouldn't lie to Peter or any of his successors, let alone disobey his teachings.
@MasterKeyMagic Wow. That's actually quite a blasphemous thing to say--the fact that you're willing to just straight up say the church can just restrict what Jesus has given is quite shocking. Nevermind the fact that those verses have to do with the church's authority to absolve or withhold absolution from *sin* (which is how the fathers interpret this verse as well--there's not one church father that thinks this verse means the church can at will restrict that which Jesus has given). The apostle Paul doesn't say "you may not ever take the cup of wine until I say so", but says there's a way to do this unworthily. That's not remotely analogous.
@@MasterKeyMagic Every Christian has the authority to do this. Not just Petere, but the apostles and everyone who believes the Gospel and confess that Jesus is the son of the living God, that is the rock, not Peter. A plain reading of the text and context leading up to your ROMAN proof text show's this.
If Jesus asked us both to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood to have eternal life, why in most cases the faithful Catholics are not given His Blood? When Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper in the first three synoptic Gospels (Mat. 26:26, Mar. 14:22, Luk. 22:19) He said: “This is my Body”. The Greek word for Body is σῶμα (Strong G4983, pronunciation: so'-mah), not σάρξ (Strong G4561, as in John 6:%1)) and σῶμα means body of a creature, that includes both flesh and blood. In 1 Cor. 11:27 Paul wrote: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread OR drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body (σῶμα, Strong G4983) AND blood of the Lord”. Thus, receiving either species in an unworthy manner will be guilty of both species. This is the reason why Catholics believe consuming one species of the Eucharist is sufficient.
can you tell me what god is actually used for? nowhere in space travel, nowhere in astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics does god play a part, you won't find god in any equation, any formula, nowhere is a legal document, a lease, a loan will god be invoked, not in any manual, any list of instructions, not on the side of a medicine bottle does it suggest praying as well, you don't need god to boil a kettle, start your car, sail a boat, where on earth id god used ANYWHERE other than emotional places. places where ANY explanation is better than magic sky daddies?
Even though I agree with many things in the video, with all due respect, I think that calvinism is also harmful to the soul because it denigrates the character of God.
Irenaeus did in fact believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (it's even biblically evident in John 6, Mark 14:22-24, Matthew 26:26-28) On the significance of the Eucharist for spiritual nourishment and communion with Christ: "He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, 'This is My body.' The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: 'You do not do My will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty'" (Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 17, Section 5). On the role of the Eucharist in the Church's worship and unity of believers: "He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which flesh is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?" (Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 2, Section 2).
Pope Gelasius also believed in the real presence: "But what necessity is there that we should say more? For in that sacrament are performed both Christ's true Passion and that bloody sacrifice which He made for the washing of the world's sins. There the bread and wine are, by the mystery of the sacred prayer, substantially changed into flesh and blood" (Letter 14, To the Emperor Anastasius, 42).
You questioned changes made by the Catholic Church on rules/practices through out history. If you checked the New Testament there are written rules/practices that even you no longer follow. For example, according to Acts 15:29 non-Jewish believers (that includes you) must abstain from eating blood and food sacrificed to idols. If you follow the rule of not eating blood, then you need to consume either kosher meat (slaughtered by Jews) or halal meat (slaughtered by Muslims) or you slaughter cows/lams/chicken etc. by yourself and make sure you drain the blood. About eating food sacrificed to idols, even Paul revised that rule in what he wrote in 1 Cor.8. Another example, according to New Testament, a person may be baptized either in the Trinitarian name (Mat. 28:19) or in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38). Now all churches, including Anglican, practise the former and banned the latter - only those who follow Modalism (non-Trinitarian) who practise the latter (and reject the former). Based on New Testament alone, you can practise both. Based on Scripture alone slavery is never abolished - the New Testament only says we should treat them justly and fairly (Col. 4:1), as compared to harsh treatment they received in the Old Testament (Exo. 21:20-21). Does it mean we can practise slavery today? If you have no issue with the above, then why you question what the Catholic Church changed through-out history like giving one or both species of the Eucharist to the faithful?
"That is, I provide a reason to think that Rome is in serious need of Reform, and the Reformational cause was in fact right." LOL, the reformation was a looting operation
Here is an easy test. What existed prior going back to the Apostles. Catholicism, or Protestantism. If the answer isn’t Protestantism, then Protestantism isn’t the answer.
Again, this is incredibly question begging since we don't see ourselves as being discontinuous. Hence the moniker Reformed Catholicism. You're just assuming your definition of "the church" as "those submitted to the Roman pontiff", which we don't agree with.
My friend, that test isn't easy at all. As a Catholic myself, I must acknowledge the INCREDIBLY loaded nature of your question. In actuality, NEITHER term existed in the days of the Apostles, and even Christian itself is an exonym. However, if we want to make light of Anglicanism specifically, we can modify the question to instead become "Which has existed for longer, The apostolic lineage or the lineage of William the Bastard?" Now we've introduced an idea that on it's face demonstrates the seniority of Church regarding the Monarchy. Then one could debate the merits further as the truth of the senility required to organically conclude the spiritual supremacy of the English Throne as we simultaneously remind that it wasn't concluded organically, but concluded by a King who experienced a traumatic brain injury which led to less inhibition.
@@anglicanaesthetics Anglicanism is discontinuous unfortunately. Before Henry all English Catholics were in communion with Rome at some point in time before the Reformation. The King hated the Reformers and tried all means to kidnap / abduct Luther back to England. So the break with Rome was more politics than doctrinal. Many Catholics who refused to switch allegiance to Henry were killed. So it is against history that you claim Anglicanism is continuous. Its propaganda that Anglicans have been sold to.
Why do Roman Catholics think these sorts of comments are helpful? It's like saying to an atheist, "well God exists you're just being stubborn"--it's a kind of combative fundamentalism that doesn't do anything to advance dialogue.
A profoundly helpful and insightful argument. Thank you, Anglican Aesthetics!
Excellent as always! Let me know when you have a moment to meet and go over videography etc.
Fantastic video. Thank you so much for addressing these issues.
Solid stuff here. Thank you for putting this together!
Thank you, Sean, for brilliantly expounding Article XIX. Also for greatly exemplifying the use of the "forgotten leg" of the '3-legged-stool', i.e. reason.
People who say that modus tolens arguments are fallacious are just memorizing fallacies rather than thinking critically.
I've never heard or read anybody say that
@@Qwerty-jy9mj I haven't seen modus tolens deniers myself, but there must be enough that he felt the need to explain why modus tolens arguments aren't fallacious in two different videos.
And I've seen people say that other arguments and argument forms are fallacious based on trying to fit the argument to a fallacy rather than thinking critically. Common fallacies thrown around like this are No True Scotsmans and Slippery Slopes.
lol, gee mister murgatroyd.
@@catfinity8799 so you;re making stuff up. i get it.
Man, this video is so good, but I had to get off the train with you on contraception. Your reasoning throughout most of this video was so tight and so good. I gotta say, though, I think you missed the mark on contraception.
Your section of Apostolica Curae was awesome btw
Yes... I believe the Tradition (both East and West) has consistently interpreted Scripture as prohibiting contraception, quite apart from the claims that Rome makes about her magisterium. The church's teaching only became obscured after we became thoroughly confused in the 60s.
I've watched a lot of Catholicism rebuttal videos, and this is honestly one of the best.
Normally people just list off 10 or 20 of their unbiblical doctrines, but you made clear logical statements that actually get to the core of the issue, and proved each undeniably. Well done.
Thank you for your video. I’m trying to figure out where I stand and it’s helpful to hear this perspective 🙏🏼 have you ever considered tiktok?
Do you have any further recommended reading on your argument from Humanae Vitae
Great stuff as always!
Awesome video! As a new convert, this is something to think about, but I really don't think I made the wrong decision. If I am wrong, I hope God firmly but gently rebukes me, but if you are wrong, then I hope he firmely but gently rebukes you, and take you to his true church.
Good video as always 👍.
Thanks for your kind comment and engagement!
What are your thoughts on total consecration to Mary? And at your parish do they offer communion in both kinds?
@@pigetstuck Yo, I agree with what Rome says on total consecration to Mary.
Yes, my parish offer communion in both kinds.
@@anglicanaestheticsJesus prophesied about you in Matt 24:24
@@jeremiahong248 I've never claimed to be a Christ, nor do I have anything even remotely resembling the gift of prophecy, nor have I performed a miraculous sign or wonder.
Major L of a comment, man. I'm not quite sure what you intend to accomplish with a comment like that. It doesn't move dialogue forward at all.
Doesn’t session 13 of Constance not enjoy infallible status due to it being preside over by an anti-pope? If so, is your argument still valid due to it nevertheless representing the authentic magisterium (per Lumen Gentium & Professio Fidei), which ought to receive religious submission of mind/will?
Very helpful!
Good presentation
The Roman doctrines on marriage and birth control have led to much social damage in Latin America, including unhealthy homes with terribles dynamics that lead to emotionally scarred children. There are more examples I can bring up, not from reading them in cold articles, but rather I have seen them in my life in Latin America.
I'd love to interview you on this, if you're down. Email me at anglicanaesthetics@gmail.com
@@anglicanaesthetics of course! It'd be an honor!
How so?
You do realize the Catholic Church played a major role in the development of Latin America? I'm willing to bet it has led to more positive impacts for society their as a whole, rather than negative.
I'm not Roman catholic, but I typically agree with their sexual ethics. What specifically about their teaching of marriage do you think causes harm?
So I believe the practice of only administrating the eucharist in one kind is still in practice. A Catholic Church in my neighborhood still does this. A friend of mine who attends there said the priest qualifies this by saying that the blood is pressent in the flesh, so it's only necessary to partake of the bread.
It certainly is in many parishes :\ although there are parishes in the Chicagoland area that do it in two kinds.
@@anglicanaesthetics ah yes. I didn't mean to communicate that this is an exclusive practice in Catholism. Merely that it is still practiced in some congregations. Thanks for the clarification
My parish only offers bread, I haven't had wine since February 2020. I understood when COVID 1st came out, but it's been 4 years.
Time stamps please. Please do another video on Transubstantiation. Have you read William Perkins A Reformed Catholic yet? You will find even more Roman errors.
What do you think is acceptable when it comes to icon veneration, and why do you believe this against the 39 Articles?
It's one thing to respect icons as you would a picture of family, and believe that icons can inspire us to follow after the lives of the saints, but it's another thing to believe that it is acceptable to salute them, kiss them, bow to them, and speak to them, and say that honor given to images passes on to the person imaged.
We are halfway between God's creation and God's judgement. May He overlook our ignorance and be merciful according to His Goodness. 💓
The history of the Magisterium's authority over 'communion in both kinds' is beyond comprehension and to think they burned Jan Hus at the stake.
>The Case Against Roman Catholicism
Guess I’ll just be Melkite Catholic, then.
Or Romanian Catholic.
Or Maronite Catholic.
Or Malankar Catholic.
Or Ruthenian Catholic.
That's quite pedantic :\ I think you know what I mean--church's that tale the Roman pontiff to be the magisterial head. We do not concede title "the Catholic Church" to you, as Protestants.
@@anglicanaesthetics but it *is* funny, nonetheless
Why are you not Orthodox Catholic? Are you heterodox? This kind of wordplay is silly.
@@CatholicSamuraiwhy not Orthodox Catholic, then? What do you have against the right doctrine? Wordplay like this is pointless.
@@CatholicSamurai
Or an Augsburg Catholic. The true Catholic Church.
Premise one already has a problem at 0:28, if Jesus said that the devil won't prevail against the true Church. What Church did he mean? Not the invisible Church mantra that most Protestants teach. You may say it's not the Catholic Church and that's fair but what Church did Christ start?
If there is no other institutional Church, then it's time to declare Christianity a false religion founded upon a false premise.
Now, you're an Anglican so I am not sure of what you believe when it comes to the institutional Church and those outside of it but it's a watered-down version of the original Anglican reformers.
Not sure how what I believe is a watered down version of what the Anglican divines believed, but I'll answer
We believe as Protestants that the devil hasn't prevailed over the visible church. The visible church is where the Gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments are rightly administered. These are actions in space and time and thus visible. Hence, we think of Lutheranism and Presbyterianism (for example) as different organizations of the one visible church; they are not competing churches (as John Cosin, Richard Hooker, and other Anglicans argued). So you're begging the question by demanding that Christ's promise must apply to one institutional expression of the visible church.
@@anglicanaestheticsthe question then is “how do you determine where the right gospel is preached and the right sacraments are administered”?
It’s just begging the question.
“Where can I find the true church?”
“You can find the true church where the true church is!”
@thejerichoconnection3473 Right, so how do we know where the Gospel is preached? Who preaches the Gospel as Scripture teaches it.
But one will say, "who gets to say what Scripture teaches"? But that can be asked about *any literary text*. In other words, if you say "the magisterium", we all interpret language--including the language of the magisterium. Do we need an infallible interpreter to interpret the magisterium? And the interpretation of that interpretation? That leads to an infinite regress (see my video on Roman Catholic epistemology).
So we actually have to dialogue about what Scripture teaches to see whose reasons for taking the text to mean certain things stands up to scrutiny.
@@anglicanaesthetics you approach the problem from a scripture alone point of view, which is neither biblical nor historical.
The gospel is not about interpreting a book. We are not Muslim.
The gospel has been preached continuously with no interruptions and no alterations in the early church (that evolved to be what we know as the Catholic Church) through apostolic succession. That’s where the gospel was from the very beginning and that’s where the gospel will ever be because that’s where the deposit of faith was preserved.
The Bible is a precious gift given by God to the Church and through the Church to help the Church spread the gospel. It was not given as a replacement of the Church.
@@thejerichoconnection3473You misunderstand the primacy of Scripture--see my Sola Apostolica video
P1- Jesus gives the free gift of salvation
P2- Jesus says the apostles can "retain a person's sins".
C- the apostolic authority (if valid) can withhold a certain gift.
Also if concomitance is true... Then the WHOLE gift is being received and what is being denied is a *species*.
That would be like saying baptisms must be done with pouring rather than immersion
(Let's say it is an extreme drought)
Denies the gift of baptism.
The person is still receiving the FULL efficacious gift of baptism.
It is just a particular expression that is denied.
In the case of a sacrament being withheld- it can be argued that is not prudent.
But can it really be argued that it is not licit to withhold a sacrament from a person for their own long term good?
Like the man in 1 Corinthians. Or a modern day person promoting abortion.
Should they not be denied for their own good?
Or an alcoholic from the wine?
Revelation 2:26-27 implies that the Church with the rod of iron; indeed can speak with Christ's authority.
And this would include his gifts:
“The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces,
even as I myself have received authority from my Father.”
(Plus the iron rod/earthen pots image relates in Jeremiah to the destruction of Jerusalem)
I'm not a Roman Catholic (for some of the reasons you lay out here, such as communion in both kinds and the irrationality of their ideas of temporal punishment), but I think you made some poor arguments on a few topics that deserve some pushback.
1) On the question of transubstantiation, I've read a bit into this issue, and what moves me is that this was never a matter of controversy between the East and the West, even in the medieval period where the most minor and trivial differences between them were fought over endlessly. The fiercely anti-Latin 18th-century Orthodox theologian Eustratios Argenti, who argued for the necessity of rebaptizing Roman Catholic converts, wrote a whole treatise on the Eucharist where he discusses the differences between Latin and Greek beliefs on the Eucharist, never brings up transubstantiation as a difference and expresses his belief in it. Athanasios Parios, another 18th-century Orthodox theologian, wrote a theological work in which he calls Thomas Aquinas one of the greatest enemies of the church, yet in that same work, he affirms transubstantiation right down to marveling over how God can make the accidents of bread and wine exist without their substance. Modern Orthodox theologians such as Schmemann, who want to exaggerate their differences with Roman Catholicism, have obscured this fact.
Let me grant your argument that some of the early Church fathers did not believe in transubstantiation, though. Even still, I don't think this is a defeater for the Roman Catholic Church requiring it as an article of faith necessary to salvation. There are numerous examples of the Church allowing certain opinions on a topic before it investigates that topic further and comes to a decision where those opinions are no longer tolerated. For example, the Christology of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, two men who were highly regarded during their lifetimes and which never earned them rebuke while they were alive, was anathematized later when the Church investigated Christological matters more deeply. The issue of rebaptizing heretics is another such case. Respected men such as Cyprian and Firmilllian of Caesarea held a rigorist position on this issue, which the Church later rejected as heresy. Vincent of Lerins remarks in his Commonitorium that even though Cyprian was a saint, the Donatists who later held his position on rebaptism are damned heretics. Origen and Marius Victorinus believed in the preexistence of souls without controversy during their lifetimes though the Fifth Ecumenical Council later anathematized this as incompatible with Christian orthodoxy.
2) I think your position on how remarriage after divorce was legitimate in the Old Testament and so it's wrong for Roman Catholics to forbid them proves too much. Polygamous marriages were also permitted in the Old Testament yet they are not recognized by your Anglican church or any other Christian church. The whole point of Jesus's rebuke to the Pharisees is that such things were a concession to the weakness of the Israelites but they are not legitimate and now that Christ has sent the Holy Spirit to empower believers to live how they were meant to they are no longer necessary.
I have looked into the question of divorce and remarriage among the Church Fathers only a little bit but I think you misrepresent the case. Citing David Bentley Hart's article is a mark against your credibility, since he makes the laughably false claim that none of the Fathers though marriage was worthy of theological reflection and he more or less ignores the influence of Byzantine imperial pressure on the Eastern church's divorce laws as well as the fact that Origen expressly condemns the practice of the hierarchs who allow separated people to remarry as contrary to the Scripture. If you are going to take episcopal toleration of something as evidence of legitimate theological disagreement you could justify just about anything. I think Hart is biased by his vendetta against traditionalist Catholics. Scholars on this subject such as Henri Crouzel and the evangelical Anglican Gordon Wenham have done historical surveys that make the Roman Catholic position seem quite historically credible.
3) Your argument against Humanae Vitae proves too much, as it seems to object to natural law reasoning as a whole which would take much of the classical Protestant ethical tradition down as well. Your argument that artificial birth control is in line with the natural periods of infertility is incoherent, as many birth control drugs disrupt the natural functioning of the body and lead to various negative side effects. Being able to render oneself permanently sterile at will goes against the natural telos of the body. That being said, I don't agree with Humanae Vitae that the use of such methods is always wrong. I think a better argument is that the natural law does not require that each and every single act of sexual intercourse much be open to life but only that the broader practice of sexual relations must be.
Thanks for your thorough engagement and for focusing on the arguments! In reply:
1.) Interestingly, transubstantiation was only codified at the Synod of Jerusalem. In my video "did the early Church teach transubstantiation", I show that there just wasn't agreement on the issue for the first 1000 years of Christianity. That's why Duns Scotus, for instance, acknowledges other views as being popular.
Now, why is this problematic to require it for salvation? For instance, didn't some fathers have questionable Christology? This is a good question, and deserves more elaboration (I might do a video on this). If something is required for salvation, and if Rome really is *just* expositing (as Rome claims in Dei Verbum), not adding, then there has to be something in the apostolic teaching itself which would mean that a denial of some claim x would contradict the apostolic teaching. Take Nicea, for instance. We don't know that all of the fathers had a fully Nicene trinitarian theology prior to Nicaea. Yet you and I would agree that Christians who deny Nicaea (and that's key--they *deny* it, and so know what they're denying) are damned. Why? Because the affirmations at Nicaea are logical consequences of what we know from apostolic teaching, such that apostolic teaching is denied if the Trinity is denied. E.g. the apostle Paul tells us to confess Jesus as "Lord"; he quotes Joel 2:32 to tell us what he means in Romans 10:9-13. He applies a text about YHWH to Jesus--so the confession of Jesus as Lord is the confession of Jesus as the one to whom texts about YHWH apply. Yet he's distinct from the Father and Spirit per other texts--and so forth.
So it can't be the case that Rome just says "x is now essential to believe for salvation" if the denial of x doesn't undermine anything in the apostolic teaching itself, and Rome is really just an expositor of that teaching as she claims to be.
2.) So yes, what of divorce and re-marriage? You're right that we condemn polygamy as sin. But that doesn't mean polygamists have *invalid marriages*. That's actually a really key distinction in missional contexts. We would bar polygamists from leadership in the church so that the community imitates the presbyters, and polygamy eventually dies out. But we wouldn't consider those invalid marriages, but marriages that have sin tainting them. That seems to be the best synthesis of the OT.
With DBH, that seems fallacious. Just because a scholar makes a false claim about x doesn't mean he's wrong about y. I specifically cited a paragraph where he includes historical sources that are pertinent to the question at hand: divorce and remarriage.
3.) In fact, I do think there is much that needs to be rethought about natural law. Though most natural law scholars agree at this point that there isn't just "one natural law tradition." There are natural law traditions, plural. Scripture certainly affirms some *sort* of natural law, insofar as the law is written on everyone's heart. But the Thomistic framing of it seems problematic, for the reasons I listed in the video.
That said, I don't see how denying the proposition "you cannot contravene the natural telos of x for some higher order good" makes all forms of natural law unusable.
@@anglicanaesthetics
Thank you for the reply
1) It is not always immediately obvious what is logically contradictory to Apostolic teaching. If it was, the long Trinitarian and Christological controversies would have been unnecessary. I doubt the Apostles and the pre-Nicene fathers had Maximus the Confessor's Dyothelitism formulated in their mind, but ultimately, the Church required it as necessary to salvation because it was the only logically consistent way to make sense of the Incarnation. Rome claims that transubstantiation is the only logically consistent way to make sense of the Real Presence. If they are correct about that, then it is hardly problematic that they require it as necessary to salvation.
2) I brought up Hart's false claims because they undermine the reliability of his interpretation of the rest of the evidence. Crouzel has offered alternative interpretations of the Council of Arles and of Basil that are in line with Roman Catholic teaching. The other evidence he brings up is from the Byzantine period, which, due to the pressures of imperial policy, can hardly be seen as consubstantial with Apostolic teaching. I objected to your citing of Hart as showing that the Roman Catholic case is obviously wrong and seemingly ignoring the significant scholarly debate on this subject.
Your position that divorce and polygamy are sinful but that remarriages after divorce and polygamous marriages are valid seems incoherent. If a behavior is sinful, then it is morally obligatory to cease and desist from it, which is impossible if polygamous marriages and divorces are valid. Societies might extend tolerance of remarriage and polygamy for a variety of reasons (as seen in the Old Testament), but that isn't the same as accepting them as valid marriages.
Not RC but interested prot and I'll share some thoughts:
1. EO, RCC, and OO all affirm the theology of transubstantiation. I've dialogued w Daniel Kakish, an OO (specifically Syriac) subdeacon and he states that in their liturgy and theology they 100% believe in transubstantiation. AA claims the Synod of Jerusalem is the only context where it is codified. It is in the Catechism of Peter Mogila, accepted by the church, the Longer Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow.
It is clear that a change occurs in the bread and wine according to the official theology. I think it's clear that when you actually press for consistency all three traditions (so majority of Christians) believe in transubstantiation
15:18 examples of the Magisterium teaching things harmful to souls
19:19 on idolatrous prayers vs veneration to Mary
24:10 the inference of YHWH language that goes to Jesus
The liturgizing of the heart to Mary
25:56- Magisterial authorized prayer to Mary
28:23 the crusade against the Waldensians, and why it’s bad - specifically a promise of remission by killing other Christians
32:00 on Francis v Lofton on 2nd marriages and receiving the Eucharist, and living in mortal sin.
I guess this dude just doesnt like the roman rite of the catholic church.
Bruh. That's pedantic :\
@@anglicanaesthetics- Ah, but is he incorrect?
@@anglicanaesthetics i coulda said worse 😂
@@Jack-yh9st He's carefully researched valid points behind doctrines in the Roman Rite. I for one, would have loved to have stayed in the Roman Rite but there are just too many nefarious and corruptive practices. Look at the points in this video, for how shockingly harmful some of them are to human souls.
@@clivejames5058 join another rite then. What matters is being in communiom with rome as all rites within the catholic church are
time to write all this down 😂
The Church can restrict though, thats what binding and loosing means. Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:15-18 and seen in action in Acts 15
Are you saying Matthew 16 authorizes the church to restrict what Jesus has permitted--to say "no you may not under pain of damnation" to where Jesus has said "you may"?
@@anglicanaesthetics Yes because thats what binding and loosing means. Whatever he binds on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever he looses on earth will be loosed in Heaven. And he alone has the keys. Paul shows us what binding and loosing looks like 1 Corinthians 11 where he teaches that the Eucharist is not to be taken in an unworthy manner. How do you know if you are unworthy? Matthew 18:15-18, which all protestants are in violation of. And again in Acts 15, without going to scripture as their highest authority, the Apostles AND their successors make a decree effective on the entire church and they explain that anyone who obeys them can be sure that they are doing what is right. Thats why following the teachings of the magisterium is doing what is right. One that does not get talked about enough is Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 where for lying to Peter, they are killed. Did the Holy Spirit kill them? Did the Holy Spirit kill them through Peter? Did Peter allow the Holy Spirit to kill them? No matter how you look at it, i wouldn't lie to Peter or any of his successors, let alone disobey his teachings.
@MasterKeyMagic Wow. That's actually quite a blasphemous thing to say--the fact that you're willing to just straight up say the church can just restrict what Jesus has given is quite shocking.
Nevermind the fact that those verses have to do with the church's authority to absolve or withhold absolution from *sin* (which is how the fathers interpret this verse as well--there's not one church father that thinks this verse means the church can at will restrict that which Jesus has given). The apostle Paul doesn't say "you may not ever take the cup of wine until I say so", but says there's a way to do this unworthily. That's not remotely analogous.
@@MasterKeyMagic Further, see my video on Sola Apostolica. Even Rome concedes that Revelation ceases with the death of the apostles.
@@MasterKeyMagic Every Christian has the authority to do this. Not just Petere, but the apostles and everyone who believes the Gospel and confess that Jesus is the son of the living God, that is the rock, not Peter. A plain reading of the text and context leading up to your ROMAN proof text show's this.
If Jesus asked us both to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood to have eternal life, why in most cases the faithful Catholics are not given His Blood?
When Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper in the first three synoptic Gospels (Mat. 26:26, Mar. 14:22, Luk. 22:19) He said: “This is my Body”. The Greek word for Body is σῶμα (Strong G4983, pronunciation: so'-mah), not σάρξ (Strong G4561, as in John 6:%1)) and σῶμα means body of a creature, that includes both flesh and blood. In 1 Cor. 11:27 Paul wrote: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread OR drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body (σῶμα, Strong G4983) AND blood of the Lord”. Thus, receiving either species in an unworthy manner will be guilty of both species. This is the reason why Catholics believe consuming one species of the Eucharist is sufficient.
can you tell me what god is actually used for? nowhere in space travel, nowhere in astronomy,
cosmology, astrophysics does god play a part, you won't find god in any equation, any formula,
nowhere is a legal document, a lease, a loan will god be invoked, not in any manual, any list
of instructions, not on the side of a medicine bottle does it suggest praying as well, you don't
need god to boil a kettle, start your car, sail a boat, where on earth id god used ANYWHERE other
than emotional places. places where ANY explanation is better than magic sky daddies?
Even though I agree with many things in the video, with all due respect, I think that calvinism is also harmful to the soul because it denigrates the character of God.
It definitely does, it’s also late to the game in terms of history
Not all Anglicans subscribe to Calvinism.
Irenaeus did in fact believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist (it's even biblically evident in John 6, Mark 14:22-24, Matthew 26:26-28)
On the significance of the Eucharist for spiritual nourishment and communion with Christ:
"He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, 'This is My body.' The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: 'You do not do My will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty'" (Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 17, Section 5).
On the role of the Eucharist in the Church's worship and unity of believers:
"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which flesh is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?" (Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 2, Section 2).
Pope Gelasius also believed in the real presence:
"But what necessity is there that we should say more? For in that sacrament are performed both Christ's true Passion and that bloody sacrifice which He made for the washing of the world's sins. There the bread and wine are, by the mystery of the sacred prayer, substantially changed into flesh and blood" (Letter 14, To the Emperor Anastasius, 42).
I referenced this and addressed this *exact issue* in my video "Did the Early Church Believe in Transubstantiation"?
@@anglicanaesthetics Are you a continuing Anglican?
You questioned changes made by the Catholic Church on rules/practices through out history. If you checked the New Testament there are written rules/practices that even you no longer follow. For example, according to Acts 15:29 non-Jewish believers (that includes you) must abstain from eating blood and food sacrificed to idols. If you follow the rule of not eating blood, then you need to consume either kosher meat (slaughtered by Jews) or halal meat (slaughtered by Muslims) or you slaughter cows/lams/chicken etc. by yourself and make sure you drain the blood. About eating food sacrificed to idols, even Paul revised that rule in what he wrote in 1 Cor.8. Another example, according to New Testament, a person may be baptized either in the Trinitarian name (Mat. 28:19) or in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38). Now all churches, including Anglican, practise the former and banned the latter - only those who follow Modalism (non-Trinitarian) who practise the latter (and reject the former). Based on New Testament alone, you can practise both. Based on Scripture alone slavery is never abolished - the New Testament only says we should treat them justly and fairly (Col. 4:1), as compared to harsh treatment they received in the Old Testament (Exo. 21:20-21). Does it mean we can practise slavery today?
If you have no issue with the above, then why you question what the Catholic Church changed through-out history like giving one or both species of the Eucharist to the faithful?
When the Roman church was reformed last time 30 denominations popped up in less than ten years. DIVISION!
Rome left the east because of their unbiblical papacy. Unity in error is still error.
@@jsharp9735 Other way around buddy.
@@TruLuan Why ? East didn't submit to ROMES power play so ROME split.
"That is, I provide a reason to think that Rome is in serious need of Reform, and the Reformational cause was in fact right."
LOL, the reformation was a looting operation
Looting... as a Romanist (I assume you are)...I would not go there
@@ethanstrunk7698 romanist is part of the 4 apostolic churches that you don't belong to
@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613you damn the other three, dont play stupid. If you want to affirm otherwise, then you disprove your own claims
@@EthanMiller-ul9sp When did I did I damn Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the east?
@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 thats what your church teaches, unless you dont know that they have flipped flopped on that
Here is an easy test. What existed prior going back to the Apostles. Catholicism, or Protestantism. If the answer isn’t Protestantism, then Protestantism isn’t the answer.
Again, this is incredibly question begging since we don't see ourselves as being discontinuous. Hence the moniker Reformed Catholicism. You're just assuming your definition of "the church" as "those submitted to the Roman pontiff", which we don't agree with.
My friend, that test isn't easy at all. As a Catholic myself, I must acknowledge the INCREDIBLY loaded nature of your question. In actuality, NEITHER term existed in the days of the Apostles, and even Christian itself is an exonym.
However, if we want to make light of Anglicanism specifically, we can modify the question to instead become "Which has existed for longer, The apostolic lineage or the lineage of William the Bastard?" Now we've introduced an idea that on it's face demonstrates the seniority of Church regarding the Monarchy. Then one could debate the merits further as the truth of the senility required to organically conclude the spiritual supremacy of the English Throne as we simultaneously remind that it wasn't concluded organically, but concluded by a King who experienced a traumatic brain injury which led to less inhibition.
@@anglicanaesthetics Anglicanism is discontinuous unfortunately. Before Henry all English Catholics were in communion with Rome at some point in time before the Reformation. The King hated the Reformers and tried all means to kidnap / abduct Luther back to England. So the break with Rome was more politics than doctrinal. Many Catholics who refused to switch allegiance to Henry were killed. So it is against history that you claim Anglicanism is continuous. Its propaganda that Anglicans have been sold to.
Catholic Church is the one true church no two ways around it.
Why do Roman Catholics think these sorts of comments are helpful? It's like saying to an atheist, "well God exists you're just being stubborn"--it's a kind of combative fundamentalism that doesn't do anything to advance dialogue.
@@anglicanaesthetics i cant help but speak the universal truth of Christ's Universal Church.
@selenoyl8740
Lutheranism is the true Catholic Church purified from corruption and heterodox theology. I cannot help speaking universal truths.
@@selenoyl8740 it's like you're not even reading the replies.
epic deboonking right here