The Anglican Church, by order of King Henry VIII, literally separated from the Catholic Church, taking some current priests and bishops with them. While those priests would’ve been excommunicated, their orders become “valid but illicit,” meaning the Anglican Church does have direct apostolic succession.
John A there are no doubt Anglican priest that do have Apostolic succession. The problem is today you don't know who has what because of the dilution of apostolic with non Apostolic
@bartx 3 How does a difference in wording change your ability to be a priest? I know that's what Catholicism claims, but just think about that for a sec, does that make sense? God judges by the heart, not the words you utter. Changing a few words in a rite shouldn't make the whole order null and void
I first experienced the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in an Episcopal/Anglican Church. I stopped being anti-Catholic that day, as well, though I didn't become Catholic for many years (I was Episcopalian for 35 years). Before that, I thought Catholics weren't even real Christians and the Eucharist idolatry. I wouldn't have believed in the Real Presence at all but for the Episcopal Church, and I wouldn't be a Catholic today. Clearly God is not bound to any form of the rite for Holy Orders, because otherwise I would still be an anti-Catholic evangelical Protestant with no knowledge of the Real Presence.
That's good but you had a revelation of what was true, not the truth itself, since the Eucharist was not valid. The Anglicans do not believe in transubstantiation, which is the true blood and flesh of Jesus in the bread and wine, that is also the reason why you changed to Catholicism, because you were not satisfied with the fake rite, you needed more, that's why you came to the Catholic Rite, to have the real deal.
If apostolic succession is not valid in the Anglican church then why are priest that received holy orders in that church are able to transfer to Roman Catholic church with wife and family and be able to celebrate mass?
Incorrect. They are not required to enter a "Catholic Seminary," but are received into the church. The distinction that is being made here is pre-Vatican II.
You're asking two completely separate questions. A. Priests that are married do not divorce their wives because according to John Paul II it would be a greater sin to break the covenant between man and wife than to allow it to preserve the tradition of celibacy (a tradition which stems from the middle ages and is not theologically mandated, even the orthodox christians and eastern catholics have married priests). B. Anglican priests must still be confirmed by a Catholic bishop i.e. given holy orders (since their Anglican Holy orders are invalid). Because the theology and liturgy of Catholc and Anglican churches are almost identical, having to make anglican priests go through seminary again would be redundant. They just have to affirm their faith in the pope as bishop of rome and the legitimacy of the Catholic Church.
When a pope gives an archbishop of Canterbury both his old episcopal ring from when he was archbishop of milan and a consecrated chalice with which to perform the eucharist, you really have to wonder if what this guy is saying is true.
You are right. The commentator needs to research further of the history of the Anglican Church especially the Traditional Anglican Church - Continuing High Church. The Traditional Anglican Churches remain in continuing the orthodoxy from the time of Joseph Arimathea who evangelized the British Isles between 35 AD -39 AD. St. Paul consecrated an Anglican priest to a bishop - Anglican Bishop Aristobulos who was among the 72 disciples and the brother of St. Barnadas.
@@hexahexametermeter Yes. I converted from Episcopal, part of that Anglican Communion. And that is fascinating that the traveled all the way to Nicea from England! Maybe by ship. Merry Christmas Ride! (All 12 Days)
Except you can literally trace the Anglican priesthood to the Apostles. Because they split from the Catholic Church, their orders are considered “valid but illicit.” Meaning that the Catholic Church wouldn’t recognize them, but they still have valid priesthood powers. The reason that the Pope said that the orders are null is because the Anglicans changed like two lines in the ordination form. For me, I think this is a bad reason. Do you really think that God is going to withhold His Spirit to work the miracles promised to us because of two lines? But anyway, yeah, that’s what happened.
Lumen Praetorius and the orthodox church regards the roman church as being in apostasy. Get over yourself. I don’t believe God is in the least bit bothered about which bit of Christendom you belong to , only that your heart is true to Him.
You clearly do not understand Apostolic succession at all. Succession requires TWO things: a line of ordination AND transmission of faith. Anglicans and Lutherans have not properly transmitted the faith and do not have apostolic succession. They lost that when they became heretics and denied the Eucharist as well as other dogmas.
bartx 3 “The great mystics tend to recognise that God does not need our protection or perfect understanding. All of our words, dogmas and rituals are like children playing in a sandbox before the infinite Mystery and Wonderment. If anything is true , then it has always been true, and people who sincerely search will touch upon the same truth in every age and culture, while using different language, symbols and rituals to point us in the same direction. The direction is always towards more love and union - and in ever widening circles. Richard Rohr , Roman Catholic Franciscan.
@bartx 3 If people are baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity, they partake of the same Spirit. For there are not two Holy Spirits, but one. Therefore, if anybody has the Spirit of Christ, they are His, as Paul says. Saying otherwise is to reject scripture and the testimony of the Holy Spirit.
@@jonathon_durno Lifelong Anglican here. My vicar once said to me, on the subject of denominations, that "we are all different branches of the same army". As for the idea of a separated brother, the parable of the two sons or the prodigal son springs to mind, in that ultimately, when we return to the Lord he will accept us all with open arms of love. Our practices, liturgies and traditions aren't what make a true church, it is the love we have for our God and for one another, as brothers and sisters in Christ. You are in my prayers, my siblings in Christ, as I hope to be in yours. God bless.
what about Anglicans ordained with the Sarum rite and the fact that all Anglicans now have Old Catholic or Orthodox lineage in their succession? Also is the question of form really still valid if current form is comparable with ancient Roman Catholic Ordinals and some eastern ordinals?
I would expect anyone who is schismed from the church is not able to validly ordain new priests or bishops. They cannot do so because they are no longer part of the body of Christ.
@@enderwiggen3638 But Vatican 2 says that the Orthodox have valid sacraments and bishops and priests. The Catholic church does not re-ordain orthodox priests who become catholic but they simply just are received as eastern catholic priests.
Madrid here is either ignorant of the history or purposefully lying. Read Fr. John Jay Hughes' "Absolutely Null and Utterly Void" (a Roman Catholic priest, by the way), and Dom Gregory Dix's "The Question of Anglican Orders", as well as "Saepius Officio", the Archbishops of Canterbury and York's response to the Papal Bull "Apostolicae Curae", explaining why our Holy Orders are not invalid.
"Anglican" simply means "English". The Anglican Catholic Church is as old as the Roman Catholic Church and nearly as old as the Eastern Catholic, or Orthodox Catholic Church branches of Christ's universal Church. Legend suggests that Joseph of Arimathea brought the catholic faith to England and that Aristobulus was consecrated the first Anglican Bishop by Saint Paul (c.5 - 64/67 AD) before St. Peter reached Rome. Historic documents list three Anglican Bishops in attendance at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. The Anglican Catholic Church in America continues in the historic Anglican expression of the Christian Faith as the same has been transmitted to them through the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the Creeds and Counsels of the Undivided Church, and the Book of Common Prayer. The Anglican Catholic Church determined to continue in the Catholic Faith, Apostolic Order, Orthodox Worship, and Evangelical Witness of the historic Anglican Church, with its traditional liturgy, music and patrimony. Aristobulus of Britannia is a Christian saint named by Hippolytus of Rome (170-235) and Dorotheus of Gaza (505-565) as one of the Seventy Disciples mentioned in Luke 10:1-24 and as the first bishop in Roman Britain. The Holy Apostle Aristobulus of the Seventy was born in Cyprus. He and his brother, the holy Apostle Barnabas of the Seventy, accompanied the holy Apostle Paul (c.5 - 64/67 AD) on his journeys. Saint Aristobulus is mentioned by the Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Romans: Romans 16:10: "...Salute them which are of Aristobulus' household" . Although this may mean members of the household of the late Aristobulus IV. The writings of St Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre AD 303, assert that he is the one saluted by Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. Saint Paul made Aristobulus a bishop and sent him to preach the Gospel in Britain, where he converted many to Christ. On his missionary journey to Britain, he stopped to preach to the Celtiberians of northern Hispania. Catholic tradition identifies Aristobulus with Zebedee, father of James and John. Aristobulus preached and died in Britain among with the people he had evangelized. His memory is celebrated on October 31 and also on the Synaxis of the Seventy Apostles January 4. While some orthodox traditions say he "died in peace", others say he was martyred in Wales. Catholic tradition says he was martyred. The British Achau, or Genealogies of the Saints, say that St Aristobulus was known as Arwystli Hen (the Elder) and that he came to Britain with others, Jewish converts, and also his own son, called ‘Manaw’. An area on the River Severn in what was Montgomeryshire in Wales used to be called ‘Arwystli’, for this was said to be the site of his martyrdom. St Aristobulus is feasted on 15/28 March in the Greek Churches and 16/29 March in the other Orthodox Churches. The Benedictine monk Serenus de Cressy (1605-1674) maintained that Aristobulus was ordained by St. Paul and died at Glastonbury Abbey in 99; but Michael Alford (author of Fides Regia Britannica Sive Annales Ecclesiae Britannicae) says that Aristobulus was the husband of "Mary" Salome which makes this date appear too late. In the New Testament, Salome was a follower of Jesus who appears briefly in the canonical gospels and in apocryphal writings. She is named by Mark as present at the crucifixion and as one of the women who found Jesus's tomb empty. In medieval tradition Salome (as Mary Salome) was counted as one of the Three Marys who were daughters of Saint Anne, so making her the sister or half-sister of Mary, mother of Jesus. Alford gives his death as "the second year of Nero" - 56. Alford also asserts that "It is perfectly certain that, before St Paul had come to Rome, Aristobulus was away in Britain". This is in accord with the date given by Gildas (c. 500-570 AD) that the "Light of Christ" shone in Britain in the last year of Emperor Tiberius (Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, 1 August 10 BC - 13 October AD 54) who was the fourth Roman emperor, ruling from AD 41 to 54.
"The Anglican Catholic Church is as old as the Roman Catholic Church and nearly as old as the Eastern Catholic, or Orthodox Catholic Church branches of Christ's universal Church." This is a misunderstanding of history. The Church in England was always Catholic (using the Latin Rite) until the English Reformation. Then emerged the Church of England, a Protestant Movement who broke away from their communion with Rome. The Latin Rite Catholics resident in England retained their communion with Rome and can trace their history back to the establishment of the Catholic Church in England. Anglican Catholics are a revisionist movement of the Church of England and can trace their history back to the Church of England, and no further. The Eastern Catholics and Lite Rite Catholics (or Roman Catholics as some like to say) are all Catholic, in direct communion and have never broken that communion with Rome (not counting those that did and then returned). The Orthodox Catholic Churches are not in communion with Rome but were originally.
@@emiliawisniewski3947 I encourage you to read the original post once more. You do not seem to understand the Anglican church is older than you think it is.
Wow! Your reply so nails it! I had always thought Episcopal Anglicans remained in apostolic succession because a Scottish bishop ordained the first Americans. England would not ordain anyone from the break away colonists. That's fine and good if one is keeping numbers for "Anglican Succession." But it cannot be Apostolic! Succession from the apostles is only true of those who are members who didn't break away from the original church. What a mess Henry VIII created! Thank you! You taught me something very important!
100% "John the Baptist: "And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham."
All anyone needs to do is watch one of the documentaries about the abuse scandal and cover up in the churches to know whose orders are truly holy. By your fruits you are know.
Why is Catholic Answers always trying to divide the Body of Christ, rather than unite it? Your online forum is exactly the same, it seems to attract every hateful divisive Catholic in the US. Please do some soul searching and praying on this.
Joseph Christian George Imagine being so brain dead on modern degeneracy you believe people with contradicting beliefs are a part of the same spiritual body.
@@laserdolphin6483 that was not my claim. But to even answer that strawman, there will be Christians that held to a more Augustinian/Calvinistic view of sotieriology in heaven, and those that hold to a synergistic soteriology in heaven. These views objectively contradict eachother even to the point of laying different claims on the character of God. 1 Corinthians 3:10-19 Speaks clearly to those that even build upon the foundation that is Christ with mistruths.
The Anglican Church, by order of King Henry VIII, literally separated from the Catholic Church, taking some current priests and bishops with them. While those priests would’ve been excommunicated, their orders become “valid but illicit,” meaning the Anglican Church does have direct apostolic succession.
The Church might not recognize their orders as binding, but it’s still apostolic succession.
The Bishops of Henri VIII, certainly. But not the Bishops of Crammer ordained with Crammer protestant ordinal ....
John A there are no doubt Anglican priest that do have Apostolic succession. The problem is today you don't know who has what because of the dilution of apostolic with non Apostolic
I don't think you understood the video
@bartx 3 How does a difference in wording change your ability to be a priest? I know that's what Catholicism claims, but just think about that for a sec, does that make sense? God judges by the heart, not the words you utter. Changing a few words in a rite shouldn't make the whole order null and void
I first experienced the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in an Episcopal/Anglican Church. I stopped being anti-Catholic that day, as well, though I didn't become Catholic for many years (I was Episcopalian for 35 years). Before that, I thought Catholics weren't even real Christians and the Eucharist idolatry. I wouldn't have believed in the Real Presence at all but for the Episcopal Church, and I wouldn't be a Catholic today. Clearly God is not bound to any form of the rite for Holy Orders, because otherwise I would still be an anti-Catholic evangelical Protestant with no knowledge of the Real Presence.
That's good but you had a revelation of what was true, not the truth itself, since the Eucharist was not valid. The Anglicans do not believe in transubstantiation, which is the true blood and flesh of Jesus in the bread and wine, that is also the reason why you changed to Catholicism, because you were not satisfied with the fake rite, you needed more, that's why you came to the Catholic Rite, to have the real deal.
If apostolic succession is not valid in the Anglican church then why are priest that received holy orders in that church are able to transfer to Roman Catholic church with wife and family and be able to celebrate mass?
Because after they convert and go through a Catholic Seminary they are "re-ordained" Catholic Priests.
Incorrect. They are not required to enter a "Catholic Seminary," but are received into the church. The distinction that is being made here is pre-Vatican II.
You're asking two completely separate questions.
A. Priests that are married do not divorce their wives because according to John Paul II it would be a greater sin to break the covenant between man and wife than to allow it to preserve the tradition of celibacy (a tradition which stems from the middle ages and is not theologically mandated, even the orthodox christians and eastern catholics have married priests).
B. Anglican priests must still be confirmed by a Catholic bishop i.e. given holy orders (since their Anglican Holy orders are invalid). Because the theology and liturgy of Catholc and Anglican churches are almost identical, having to make anglican priests go through seminary again would be redundant. They just have to affirm their faith in the pope as bishop of rome and the legitimacy of the Catholic Church.
bit different then that but what and does it really matters , if you are a christian and does not have to be a roman catholic one ,
The Roman Church has some 100 converted-from-Anglican priests.
When a pope gives an archbishop of Canterbury both his old episcopal ring from when he was archbishop of milan and a consecrated chalice with which to perform the eucharist, you really have to wonder if what this guy is saying is true.
The very mechanism used to "nullify" Anglican Orders would also nullify Roman Catholic orders as well.
Very poorly written document.
You are right. The commentator needs to research further of the history of the Anglican Church especially the Traditional Anglican Church - Continuing High Church. The Traditional Anglican Churches remain in continuing the orthodoxy from the time of Joseph Arimathea who evangelized the British Isles between 35 AD -39 AD. St. Paul consecrated an Anglican priest to a bishop - Anglican Bishop Aristobulos who was among the 72 disciples and the brother of St. Barnadas.
This comment needs to go to the top. This video is part of the plethora of evidence that Roman Catholic apologists are totally disingenuous.
@@hexahexametermeter
I would say that Pope Francis is proof enough now.
At the Council of Nicea 325 AD all valid bishops convened and there were 3 Anglican Bishops who were invited to join and attended.
In 325 AD there were no Anglicans! Henry VIII created that in the 1500's. However, I am glad to hear that 2 English priests traveled to Nicea!
@@AnneEloiseOfCNY maybe the anglican bishops were time travelers?
@@AnneEloiseOfCNY Anglican means English. And they were there.
@@hexahexametermeter Yes. I converted from Episcopal, part of that Anglican Communion. And that is fascinating that the traveled all the way to Nicea from England! Maybe by ship. Merry Christmas Ride! (All 12 Days)
That's cool.
Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican orders “absolutely null and utterly void”.End of story.
Except you can literally trace the Anglican priesthood to the Apostles. Because they split from the Catholic Church, their orders are considered “valid but illicit.” Meaning that the Catholic Church wouldn’t recognize them, but they still have valid priesthood powers. The reason that the Pope said that the orders are null is because the Anglicans changed like two lines in the ordination form. For me, I think this is a bad reason. Do you really think that God is going to withhold His Spirit to work the miracles promised to us because of two lines? But anyway, yeah, that’s what happened.
Lumen Praetorius and the orthodox church regards the roman church as being in apostasy. Get over yourself. I don’t believe God is in the least bit bothered about which bit of Christendom you belong to , only that your heart is true to Him.
You clearly do not understand Apostolic succession at all. Succession requires TWO things: a line of ordination AND transmission of faith. Anglicans and Lutherans have not properly transmitted the faith and do not have apostolic succession. They lost that when they became heretics and denied the Eucharist as well as other dogmas.
@@mosesking2923 except we don't deny the Eucharist.
bartx 3 “The great mystics tend to recognise that God does not need our protection or perfect understanding. All of our words, dogmas and rituals are like children playing in a sandbox before the infinite Mystery and Wonderment. If anything is true , then it has always been true, and people who sincerely search will touch upon the same truth in every age and culture, while using different language, symbols and rituals to point us in the same direction.
The direction is always towards more love and union - and in ever widening circles. Richard Rohr , Roman Catholic Franciscan.
We are all Brothers and Sisters in Christ
Well said brother.
Jimmy Wadsworth Novus Ordo, hand-holding clown religion.
@bartx 3 If people are baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity, they partake of the same Spirit. For there are not two Holy Spirits, but one. Therefore, if anybody has the Spirit of Christ, they are His, as Paul says.
Saying otherwise is to reject scripture and the testimony of the Holy Spirit.
@bartx 3 God bless you for your humility brother. Pray for me. Christ is risen!
@@jonathon_durno Lifelong Anglican here. My vicar once said to me, on the subject of denominations, that "we are all different branches of the same army". As for the idea of a separated brother, the parable of the two sons or the prodigal son springs to mind, in that ultimately, when we return to the Lord he will accept us all with open arms of love. Our practices, liturgies and traditions aren't what make a true church, it is the love we have for our God and for one another, as brothers and sisters in Christ.
You are in my prayers, my siblings in Christ, as I hope to be in yours. God bless.
what about Anglicans ordained with the Sarum rite and the fact that all Anglicans now have Old Catholic or Orthodox lineage in their succession? Also is the question of form really still valid if current form is comparable with ancient Roman Catholic Ordinals and some eastern ordinals?
I would expect anyone who is schismed from the church is not able to validly ordain new priests or bishops. They cannot do so because they are no longer part of the body of Christ.
@@enderwiggen3638 But Vatican 2 says that the Orthodox have valid sacraments and bishops and priests. The Catholic church does not re-ordain orthodox priests who become catholic but they simply just are received as eastern catholic priests.
Madrid here is either ignorant of the history or purposefully lying. Read Fr. John Jay Hughes' "Absolutely Null and Utterly Void" (a Roman Catholic priest, by the way), and Dom Gregory Dix's "The Question of Anglican Orders", as well as "Saepius Officio", the Archbishops of Canterbury and York's response to the Papal Bull "Apostolicae Curae", explaining why our Holy Orders are not invalid.
"Anglican" simply means "English". The Anglican Catholic Church is as old as the Roman Catholic Church and nearly as old as the Eastern Catholic, or Orthodox Catholic Church branches of Christ's universal Church. Legend suggests that Joseph of Arimathea brought the catholic faith to England and that Aristobulus was consecrated the first Anglican Bishop by Saint Paul (c.5 - 64/67 AD) before St. Peter reached Rome. Historic documents list three Anglican Bishops in attendance at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. The Anglican Catholic Church in America continues in the historic Anglican expression of the Christian Faith as the same has been transmitted to them through the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the Creeds and Counsels of the Undivided Church, and the Book of Common Prayer. The Anglican Catholic Church determined to continue in the Catholic Faith, Apostolic Order, Orthodox Worship, and Evangelical Witness of the historic Anglican Church, with its traditional liturgy, music and patrimony.
Aristobulus of Britannia is a Christian saint named by Hippolytus of Rome (170-235) and Dorotheus of Gaza (505-565) as one of the Seventy Disciples mentioned in Luke 10:1-24 and as the first bishop in Roman Britain. The Holy Apostle Aristobulus of the Seventy was born in Cyprus. He and his brother, the holy Apostle Barnabas of the Seventy, accompanied the holy Apostle Paul (c.5 - 64/67 AD) on his journeys. Saint Aristobulus is mentioned by the Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Romans: Romans 16:10: "...Salute them which are of Aristobulus' household" . Although this may mean members of the household of the late Aristobulus IV. The writings of St Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre AD 303, assert that he is the one saluted by Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. Saint Paul made Aristobulus a bishop and sent him to preach the Gospel in Britain, where he converted many to Christ. On his missionary journey to Britain, he stopped to preach to the Celtiberians of northern Hispania. Catholic tradition identifies Aristobulus with Zebedee, father of James and John.
Aristobulus preached and died in Britain among with the people he had evangelized. His memory is celebrated on October 31 and also on the Synaxis of the Seventy Apostles January 4. While some orthodox traditions say he "died in peace", others say he was martyred in Wales. Catholic tradition says he was martyred. The British Achau, or Genealogies of the Saints, say that St Aristobulus was known as Arwystli Hen (the Elder) and that he came to Britain with others, Jewish converts, and also his own son, called ‘Manaw’. An area on the River Severn in what was Montgomeryshire in Wales used to be called ‘Arwystli’, for this was said to be the site of his martyrdom. St Aristobulus is feasted on 15/28 March in the Greek Churches and 16/29 March in the other Orthodox Churches.
The Benedictine monk Serenus de Cressy (1605-1674) maintained that Aristobulus was ordained by St. Paul and died at Glastonbury Abbey in 99; but Michael Alford (author of Fides Regia Britannica Sive Annales Ecclesiae Britannicae) says that Aristobulus was the husband of "Mary" Salome which makes this date appear too late. In the New Testament, Salome was a follower of Jesus who appears briefly in the canonical gospels and in apocryphal writings. She is named by Mark as present at the crucifixion and as one of the women who found Jesus's tomb empty. In medieval tradition Salome (as Mary Salome) was counted as one of the Three Marys who were daughters of Saint Anne, so making her the sister or half-sister of Mary, mother of Jesus. Alford gives his death as "the second year of Nero" - 56. Alford also asserts that "It is perfectly certain that, before St Paul had come to Rome, Aristobulus was away in Britain". This is in accord with the date given by Gildas (c. 500-570 AD) that the "Light of Christ" shone in Britain in the last year of Emperor Tiberius (Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, 1 August 10 BC - 13 October AD 54) who was the fourth Roman emperor, ruling from AD 41 to 54.
"The Anglican Catholic Church is as old as the Roman Catholic Church and nearly as old as the Eastern Catholic, or Orthodox Catholic Church branches of Christ's universal Church."
This is a misunderstanding of history. The Church in England was always Catholic (using the Latin Rite) until the English Reformation. Then emerged the Church of England, a Protestant Movement who broke away from their communion with Rome. The Latin Rite Catholics resident in England retained their communion with Rome and can trace their history back to the establishment of the Catholic Church in England. Anglican Catholics are a revisionist movement of the Church of England and can trace their history back to the Church of England, and no further.
The Eastern Catholics and Lite Rite Catholics (or Roman Catholics as some like to say) are all Catholic, in direct communion and have never broken that communion with Rome (not counting those that did and then returned). The Orthodox Catholic Churches are not in communion with Rome but were originally.
@@emiliawisniewski3947 I encourage you to read the original post once more. You do not seem to understand the Anglican church is older than you think it is.
Wow! Your reply so nails it! I had always thought Episcopal Anglicans remained in apostolic succession because a Scottish bishop ordained the first Americans. England would not ordain anyone from the break away colonists.
That's fine and good if one is keeping numbers for "Anglican Succession." But it cannot be Apostolic! Succession from the apostles is only true of those who are members who didn't break away from the original church.
What a mess Henry VIII created!
Thank you! You taught me something very important!
I believe that what is important is a succession of doctrine and dogma, not of lineage.
100% "John the Baptist: "And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham."
All anyone needs to do is watch one of the documentaries about the abuse scandal and cover up in the churches to know whose orders are truly holy. By your fruits you are know.
Why is Catholic Answers always trying to divide the Body of Christ, rather than unite it? Your online forum is exactly the same, it seems to attract every hateful divisive Catholic in the US. Please do some soul searching and praying on this.
what? you want people to lie to you to soothe your feelings?
Joel Tunnah Non-Catholics are not a part of the body of Christ.
@@laserdolphin6483 yikes, actual people believe this.
Joseph Christian George Imagine being so brain dead on modern degeneracy you believe people with contradicting beliefs are a part of the same spiritual body.
@@laserdolphin6483 that was not my claim. But to even answer that strawman, there will be Christians that held to a more Augustinian/Calvinistic view of sotieriology in heaven, and those that hold to a synergistic soteriology in heaven. These views objectively contradict eachother even to the point of laying different claims on the character of God.
1 Corinthians 3:10-19
Speaks clearly to those that even build upon the foundation that is Christ with mistruths.
No, they don't
This guy know ZERO about the English church.