I'm an "Orthodox" Anglican as well, and just happened upon your channel. For a "hobby," you know more than most Anglicans, you know why you believe what your believe, and you speak well and have a wonderful gift to make the subject interesting. Looking forward to many more videos!
@@TruLuan My opinion would be a Church that holds to the historic Anglican formularies: the Bible, the Creeds, the BCP (1662, 1928, or 2019), the 39 Articles, the Books of Homilies, and the Jerusalem Declaration. Most ACNA churches would hold to these; most USA Episcopal churches would not. Young_Anglican may want to give you his answer.
@@JohnDinChrist I guess my concern is the disunity amongst Anglican's. I was looking to see if there's a website like the ACNA that shows all the "Orthodox" Anglican churches and are these type of Churches available on a global scale, meaning are they evangelizing. I'm Roman Catholic but I'm drawn to the Angelican Church because they receive both hosts (Unleavened bread dipped in wine) where as Catholics only offer the bread and I feel like I'm not receiving Christ in his fullness if that makes sense.
Love your content. Been attending an ACNA church but want to learn more about Anglican history. I grew up Baptist but kinda left the faith for many years. Anglicanism has made me fall in love with the faith again.
Another excellent and informative video. My high-church ACNA parish uses the term "Anglo-Catholic" with some frequency but I like your term "Apostolic Anglican" better and it seems more accurate as well.
I appreciate the overview. This is the niche I found in Anglicanism, which I felt lacked in the other attempts at synthesis (Uniates and Western Rite): Anglicanism is organic synthesis of the first millennium without subjugating the East to the Pope or the West to provincialisms within the East. Anglicans can embrace influences like Patrick, Alban, Columba, Augustine of Canterbury, and Theodore of Tarsus without having to endorse ahistorical medieval practices or ahistorical reformed revisions.
I'm fairly new in discovery of this channel, and very grateful for it. You shed a lot of light on my personal pilgrimage from Zwinglian Palatine German Reformed upbringing in western Pennsylvania, through conversation to Anglican semi-high church life via the writings of C.S. Lewis and the Cathedral parish of Saint James in Chicago, to decades of practice within the Episcopal charismatic context, to a sort of detached state of solo discipleship in southwestern Ohio, unable to participate with any nearby ACNA congregation. So, I much appreciate your review, analysis and reflections on the history and practice of Apostolic Anglican Orthodoxy!
I’m an Orthodox Missionary Anglican equal to Deacon River from New Zealand on issues such as women’s ordination to the diaconate priesthood or bishopric. I pray both the 2019 ACNA BCP and the 1662 IE BCP but am nostalgic for the 1928 and 1979 TEC BCP.
Very interesting video. I had no idea about the “types” of Anglicans and their history. Tbh, I didn’t know Anglo-Orthodox was even a thing 😅. I’m glad I learned something new. Even though I’m a reformed Baptist, I always love learning about my Christian brothers and sisters who hold different perspectives than me. May our Lord bless you, my brother in Christ, sir.
Interesting. Clarify a lot of things. During the Swedish Reformation we actually had a similar period of "orthodoxy", or whatever you want to call it, under Johan III. John III reigned for 23 years and reintroduced many Roman Catholic customs, defended the monasteries and argued for a reformation on the basis of the church fathers. But he never won the clergy or the people, so after his death things returned to Lutheran orthodoxy, although some things like apostolic succession and some other things were kept, giving the Swedish church a certain distinctiveness in comparison to other Lutheran churches. Calvinism (and the like) had zero influence on the Swedish Reformation, but only came in the 19th century through English and American missionaries - thanks guys ;-)
That "Sola Apostolica" idea sounds very similar to how Frs. Stephen De Young and Andrew Stephen Damick (both OCA Eastern Orthodox) frame the reception of the Canon in The Lord of Spirits podcast. Very interesting.
Young Anglican, have you had a conversation with Fr. James at Barely Protestant? If not, that could be really enjoyable. I’m enjoying your videos; keep up the good work.
I suppose a more truly orthodox example of anglo-orthodoxy would be western rite orthodoxy since it utilises the traditionally British Sarum rite, it takes many of its translated liturgical texts from the anglican traditions, it agrees theologically with the majority of what you said and with the rest of the orthodox church. It is truly orthodox theologically and culturally appealing to an anglican background, since WR Orthodoxy is culturally anglican.
That tradition is valuable, but it is missing some of the Protestant theology necessary here. The English Reformation had ups and downs, but it was necessary.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I’m pretty sure Anglican theologians like the Caroline Divines have been conceptualizing Anglicanism as more in-line with apostolic/primitive Christianity than Roman Catholicism for a long time. I don’t know if that idea is such a novel concept that it requires a whole new and ahistorical label for your beliefs. Especially since Anglo-Catholic already fills in a lot of the “conservative Reformation” stuff you’re referring to and an emphasis on high church and apostolic Christianity, it doesn’t really track for me.
@@puremercury I guess I just personally don’t like coming up with new personal labels that don’t have a basis in any actual theological or scholarly movement. “Anglo-Orthodox” is not a thing. It’s one thing to say “I’m an Anglican/Anglo-Catholic that emphasizes Eastern Orthodox theology”, but Anglo-Orthodox is meaningless to me because it’s not really a *thing*.
@@bg9764 Every term was new at some point. I agree that it's not the most useful term, as I have mentioned that "Paleo-orthodox" and "Classical Christian" are already terms that get the same idea across, although without being specifically Anglican/Episcopalian.
I think yes but all our creations and discoveries must be laid at the feet of God, meaning that we must keep God in mind as we create because things can be used for either our prosperity or our destruction (both physically and spiritually). When God builds a church, the devil builds a chapel next door.
Given that the origin of universities in Asia arose from Syriac Christians (renowned for medicine, diplomacy, philosophy, translation, and theology) and among Europeans throughout the medieval period (Greek East sustained its classical pillars of study up to the early modern era, to include Alexandria’s then-primacy in sciences and mathematics), yes Christians can lead civilizations in all facets from Britain to China. They did so even when a minority under Caliphs and Khans.
Are there any groups within Anglicanism that are "Laudian" today (in support of the views of William Laud, Charles I's Archbishop of Canterbury)? I don't know if you are familiar with him, but his views seem somewhat similar to yours. He was high-church and vehemently pro-bishops, but also very Arminian.
An interesting video. a Sola Apostólica is something interesting. But how would you (and others) explain the Roman Catholic claims that the Magisterium gathered and compiled the bible? Obs: You should make more videos explaining the Sola Apostólica more.
We actually dive into this topic in our episode on the Protestant view of self-authentication of Scripture! So, I won't bore you with a long response here. I think the traditional answer would be an appeal to history. There was no ecumenical council deciding the canon, and the deutero-canonicals recognized as Scripture varied (and still do) depending on where you were. Some local councils affirmed what would become the Roman Catholic canon (Hippo, Carthage, Rome) and some rejected the "extra books" (like Laodicea). I believe the argument would be that nobody compiled the Bible, but the Holy Spirit led the church to unanimously recognize 66 books as canonical, so there was no need for an ecumenical council to declare the canon.
Lord Of Spirits (An Orthodox Podcast) has a good episode on this called "As Delivered By Angels". The TL;DR is that the magisterium didn't actually define the Bible until waaay later. So it wasn't a prescriptive canon, it was descriptive. Short version is that the Holy Spirit delivered us the Bible through tradition. The Magestirum just recognized it.
Anglicanism is very appealing to me, but it is just so hard to feel comfortable in an Anglican church given the current state of the church, especially in America. The main body in communion with the See of Canturbury, the Episcopal Church, is all but heretical - I have spent hours trying to find an Episcopal church that even talks about the gospel on the west coast and it is a desert. That really undermines the legitimacy of Anglicanism for me, as most of the historic Anglican institutions and ecumenical efforts are in the official Communion. The ACNA is better, but it is also very divided, divisive, and unstable. I feel the painful anxiety of not even knowing whether I'll be able to raise children in a church that still exists as a church by the time they are adults. And so, while Anglicanism is perhaps the expression of Christianity I find most compelling both spiritually and theologically, I find myself still wondering whether my family ought to consider Orthodoxy just for practical reasons.
I understand where you are coming from. I get comments and messages like this all of the time. If everyone who felt this way joined the ACNA and started advocating for historic Anglicanism and beautiful church buildings and all that, this problem would go away overnight. I felt the same way you do. But I feel convicted to truly heal the damage done to Anglicanism in the last couple decades, because this is the exact kind of work Christ calls us to do
If you are struggling to find a suitable church based upon the church founded upon the principles of the reformation, it may be because the reformation itself was a heresy. have you considered looking pre-formation? Perhaps the very early church?
@@wordforever117 I have definitely considered it. As it stands, I am not convinced that the reason Anglicanism is a mess is because it is based on heresy as much as because of the political context of the West (which has always been subject to a great deal of ideological and political division because of the geography and power issues). I anticipate that apostolic churches will struggle in their own ways in the next century as they become more publicly engaged with modern, Western institutions. But of course I may be wrong.
There are confessional Anglicans who obey their bishop(s) and there new evangelical Anglican transplants who have found a new home to define their own personal religion.
I promise I am not trying to troll you here. Your vlog has lots of wonderful information. That said, if you eliminated the phrases "I would say" and "we'll talk about that in a minute" the video would be half as long.
There is no relationship between "more memorial" and "more spiritual" nor is there a difference between "real presence of Christ" and "spiritual presence." Your phrasing was probably not intentional but it can imply these things. Can be confusing for new inquirors.
25:27 This is because of how the Catholic Church views the Eucharist. That view is both species become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.
We know that’s what they think, and what the theology is behind it. We just think Christ’s authority is on a higher level than the church, and even if this is true, He still commanded us to take the Eucharist in both kinds.
@@danielkulju9836The Catholic Church firmly believes that the authority of Christ is on a higher level than the Church. They Church gets it's authority from Christ, so it cannot be higher than Christ. The authentic teaching of the Eucharist is entirely biblical.
You seem to be very technical, what's wrong with Anglicanism not having its own identity??? What's wrong with that? We are Christians, there is broadness in the Christian communion, and Anglicanism prevents putting us in a restrictive box like most denominations.
It seems that the more I learn about church history and theology the more convoluted it becomes. From the very start, it was flawed. The 12 frequently argued among themselves, and Judas Iscariot was a thief and a traitor. The Corinthians
The (39) Articles of Religion are not binding on Anglicans, clerical and lay. We are supposed to believe the three historic creeds but they are shared with most of orthodox Christendom. So beyond them we are free to believe whatever we want about everything else.
Massive L, Aquinas and Augustine both taught the reformed view of predestination. Bishops and presbyters were intended to have equal positions of authority. Cope harder 😂 I’m jk
@@Young_Anglican wait, so you are reformed, you're just more anglo-cath or apostolic anglican. if so, super based. My friend is Reformed Anglo-Cath. He will use words like merit and holy tradition that would make a baptist cringe, but I've discussed these things with him and we're more similar than not. I'm a relatively high church presbyterian (I affirm the perpetual virginity of the blessed mother of God) so I'm comfortable with the term reformed catholic. Puritanism and Congregationalism are despicable to me. Not the people, just the theology. You should collaborate with zoomer more. Thoughts on reconquista?
@@keelanenns4548 yeah I would probably be more comfortable with Reformed language around Predestination now than I was when I made this video, (I have since looked into the history of Augustinianism and realized it is historic) but I am still pretty high church.
so sectarian that the apostle Paul had to directly address the issue. Converted Jews, probably of the of the Pharisees, insisted that Gentiles must first become Jewish through circumcision and by following other Jewish rituals and practices, departing from the gospel message and creating divisions within the Church. As time passed, it became so entwined with philosophy and politics it became virtually unrecognizable. Today, everyone has their own Bible, and reads it through their own colored lenses, and with their own agendas, and the Church becomes more and more fractured. So, how can Anglicanism (or any other expression of Christianity), being seriously damaged goods, be a beacon of truth for anyone? How can the Church reclaim and adhere to the deposit of faith once and forever delivered to the Apostles?
I mean...don't all modern Christians believe in some form of "predestination", don't we ALL accept the concept of "The Rapture" and the Second Coming of Jesus? That sounds "definite" to me. Beyond that, I would suggest you're more of a "Deist" than a strict Christian if you don't accept that Jesus will return to restore the ENTIRE flock, believers and nonbelievers alike.
I definitely believe in Predestination and the Second Coming, but that is not what the precise doctrine of the Rapture is. The Rapture is one hyper specific explanation of the Second Coming that was developed in the United States in the 1830s.
The rapture is an invention around 150 odd years old which has nothing to do with the Christian Faith - the Second Coming isn't the rapture. Predestination is a Calvinist heresy.
You are morally accountable for teaching falsity. Henry VIII deserved more complete coverage in this presentation. You know EXACTLY what I mean. For your own salvation, get honest.
"These are unillumined nous who cannot discern their prelest. Read the Desert Fathers and the Philokalia!" -The Greek East "These are estranged brethren with questionable ecclesial bodies. Read the canons of Trent and Vatican II!" -The Roman West At least give clarity to what trajectory you intended to veer into with your supposed advice. The Apostolic Fathers and the proceeding centuries have a great reverence among the Anglican tradition.
@@gigachad6524Reading the Apostolic Fathers is actually a pretty constructive suggestion in my opinion! Have you read Clement of Rome or Irenaeus of Lyon or Ignatius of Antioch before? Very inspiring!
I'm an "Orthodox" Anglican as well, and just happened upon your channel. For a "hobby," you know more than most Anglicans, you know why you believe what your believe, and you speak well and have a wonderful gift to make the subject interesting. Looking forward to many more videos!
Thanks!
How can I tell if a local Episcopal or Anglican church in my area is "Orthodox"?
@@TruLuan My opinion would be a Church that holds to the historic Anglican formularies: the Bible, the Creeds, the BCP (1662, 1928, or 2019), the 39 Articles, the Books of Homilies, and the Jerusalem Declaration. Most ACNA churches would hold to these; most USA Episcopal churches would not. Young_Anglican may want to give you his answer.
@@JohnDinChrist I guess my concern is the disunity amongst Anglican's. I was looking to see if there's a website like the ACNA that shows all the "Orthodox" Anglican churches and are these type of Churches available on a global scale, meaning are they evangelizing. I'm Roman Catholic but I'm drawn to the Angelican Church because they receive both hosts (Unleavened bread dipped in wine) where as Catholics only offer the bread and I feel like I'm not receiving Christ in his fullness if that makes sense.
Love your content. Been attending an ACNA church but want to learn more about Anglican history. I grew up Baptist but kinda left the faith for many years. Anglicanism has made me fall in love with the faith again.
Another excellent and informative video. My high-church ACNA parish uses the term "Anglo-Catholic" with some frequency but I like your term "Apostolic Anglican" better and it seems more accurate as well.
Why not join the episcopal church?
I'm an old-school complementarian conservative ecumenical Reformed-evangelical Anglican Christian.
Why not be Presbyterian?
@@keelanenns4548 Apostolic succession of bishops and the prayer book, plus the fact that I'm already in a good tradition
@@mitchmclean5435 those are good reasons
Good for you! I am too here in HK
I appreciate the overview. This is the niche I found in Anglicanism, which I felt lacked in the other attempts at synthesis (Uniates and Western Rite): Anglicanism is organic synthesis of the first millennium without subjugating the East to the Pope or the West to provincialisms within the East. Anglicans can embrace influences like Patrick, Alban, Columba, Augustine of Canterbury, and Theodore of Tarsus without having to endorse ahistorical medieval practices or ahistorical reformed revisions.
I've been so blessed by Sean Luke's work on Protestant epistemology via Sola Apostolica too. Thank you for this thorough work.
I'm fairly new in discovery of this channel, and very grateful for it. You shed a lot of light on my personal pilgrimage from Zwinglian Palatine German Reformed upbringing in western Pennsylvania, through conversation to Anglican semi-high church life via the writings of C.S. Lewis and the Cathedral parish of Saint James in Chicago, to decades of practice within the Episcopal charismatic context, to a sort of detached state of solo discipleship in southwestern Ohio, unable to participate with any nearby ACNA congregation. So, I much appreciate your review, analysis and reflections on the history and practice of Apostolic Anglican Orthodoxy!
I’m an Orthodox Missionary Anglican equal to Deacon River from New Zealand on issues such as women’s ordination to the diaconate priesthood or bishopric. I pray both the 2019 ACNA BCP and the 1662 IE BCP but am nostalgic for the 1928 and 1979 TEC BCP.
Very interesting and gives me much to research (hadn't heard about Gardiner at all until now). Will research the 6 articles...I mean the 10 articles 😅
The beard goes hard. The videos stay informative. Keep it up YA 💪
Very interesting video. I had no idea about the “types” of Anglicans and their history. Tbh, I didn’t know Anglo-Orthodox was even a thing 😅. I’m glad I learned something new. Even though I’m a reformed Baptist, I always love learning about my Christian brothers and sisters who hold different perspectives than me. May our Lord bless you, my brother in Christ, sir.
Interesting. Clarify a lot of things. During the Swedish Reformation we actually had a similar period of "orthodoxy", or whatever you want to call it, under Johan III. John III reigned for 23 years and reintroduced many Roman Catholic customs, defended the monasteries and argued for a reformation on the basis of the church fathers. But he never won the clergy or the people, so after his death things returned to Lutheran orthodoxy, although some things like apostolic succession and some other things were kept, giving the Swedish church a certain distinctiveness in comparison to other Lutheran churches. Calvinism (and the like) had zero influence on the Swedish Reformation, but only came in the 19th century through English and American missionaries - thanks guys ;-)
That "Sola Apostolica" idea sounds very similar to how Frs. Stephen De Young and Andrew Stephen Damick (both OCA Eastern Orthodox) frame the reception of the Canon in The Lord of Spirits podcast. Very interesting.
Young Anglican, have you had a conversation with Fr. James at Barely Protestant? If not, that could be really enjoyable. I’m enjoying your videos; keep up the good work.
I'd love to tbh
Well done, a good explanation of Anglican doctrine.
Can you do a video on anglo-catholics? I think I might be one, but I'm not sure what they actually believe.
Look into Jonah Saller on UA-cam. He is a great Anglo-Catholic.
I suppose a more truly orthodox example of anglo-orthodoxy would be western rite orthodoxy since it utilises the traditionally British Sarum rite, it takes many of its translated liturgical texts from the anglican traditions, it agrees theologically with the majority of what you said and with the rest of the orthodox church. It is truly orthodox theologically and culturally appealing to an anglican background, since WR Orthodoxy is culturally anglican.
That tradition is valuable, but it is missing some of the Protestant theology necessary here. The English Reformation had ups and downs, but it was necessary.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I’m pretty sure Anglican theologians like the Caroline Divines have been conceptualizing Anglicanism as more in-line with apostolic/primitive Christianity than Roman Catholicism for a long time. I don’t know if that idea is such a novel concept that it requires a whole new and ahistorical label for your beliefs. Especially since Anglo-Catholic already fills in a lot of the “conservative Reformation” stuff you’re referring to and an emphasis on high church and apostolic Christianity, it doesn’t really track for me.
I myself lean toward the Paleo-orthodox side of the faith tradition, aka Classical Christianity.
I don't agree that the label is "ahistorical."
@@puremercury I guess I just personally don’t like coming up with new personal labels that don’t have a basis in any actual theological or scholarly movement. “Anglo-Orthodox” is not a thing. It’s one thing to say “I’m an Anglican/Anglo-Catholic that emphasizes Eastern Orthodox theology”, but Anglo-Orthodox is meaningless to me because it’s not really a *thing*.
@@bg9764 Every term was new at some point. I agree that it's not the most useful term, as I have mentioned that "Paleo-orthodox" and "Classical Christian" are already terms that get the same idea across, although without being specifically Anglican/Episcopalian.
can Christianity have a golden age? can Christians do Art Mathematics and medicine?
I think yes but all our creations and discoveries must be laid at the feet of God, meaning that we must keep God in mind as we create because things can be used for either our prosperity or our destruction (both physically and spiritually). When God builds a church, the devil builds a chapel next door.
Given that the origin of universities in Asia arose from Syriac Christians (renowned for medicine, diplomacy, philosophy, translation, and theology) and among Europeans throughout the medieval period (Greek East sustained its classical pillars of study up to the early modern era, to include Alexandria’s then-primacy in sciences and mathematics), yes Christians can lead civilizations in all facets from Britain to China. They did so even when a minority under Caliphs and Khans.
You could argue that it has had a Golden Age tbh
What!? What do you mean?
Are there any groups within Anglicanism that are "Laudian" today (in support of the views of William Laud, Charles I's Archbishop of Canterbury)? I don't know if you are familiar with him, but his views seem somewhat similar to yours. He was high-church and vehemently pro-bishops, but also very Arminian.
There are some Old High Church types, yes. Not a big group.
Supposedly I am related to Wolsey. It's just hard to make the connection because of who he was.
Based.
An interesting video.
a Sola Apostólica is something interesting.
But how would you (and others) explain the Roman Catholic claims that the Magisterium gathered and compiled the bible?
Obs: You should make more videos explaining the Sola Apostólica more.
We actually dive into this topic in our episode on the Protestant view of self-authentication of Scripture! So, I won't bore you with a long response here. I think the traditional answer would be an appeal to history. There was no ecumenical council deciding the canon, and the deutero-canonicals recognized as Scripture varied (and still do) depending on where you were.
Some local councils affirmed what would become the Roman Catholic canon (Hippo, Carthage, Rome) and some rejected the "extra books" (like Laodicea).
I believe the argument would be that nobody compiled the Bible, but the Holy Spirit led the church to unanimously recognize 66 books as canonical, so there was no need for an ecumenical council to declare the canon.
Lord Of Spirits (An Orthodox Podcast) has a good episode on this called "As Delivered By Angels". The TL;DR is that the magisterium didn't actually define the Bible until waaay later. So it wasn't a prescriptive canon, it was descriptive.
Short version is that the Holy Spirit delivered us the Bible through tradition. The Magestirum just recognized it.
We're Broadchurch now!
Anglicanism is very appealing to me, but it is just so hard to feel comfortable in an Anglican church given the current state of the church, especially in America. The main body in communion with the See of Canturbury, the Episcopal Church, is all but heretical - I have spent hours trying to find an Episcopal church that even talks about the gospel on the west coast and it is a desert. That really undermines the legitimacy of Anglicanism for me, as most of the historic Anglican institutions and ecumenical efforts are in the official Communion. The ACNA is better, but it is also very divided, divisive, and unstable. I feel the painful anxiety of not even knowing whether I'll be able to raise children in a church that still exists as a church by the time they are adults. And so, while Anglicanism is perhaps the expression of Christianity I find most compelling both spiritually and theologically, I find myself still wondering whether my family ought to consider Orthodoxy just for practical reasons.
I understand where you are coming from. I get comments and messages like this all of the time. If everyone who felt this way joined the ACNA and started advocating for historic Anglicanism and beautiful church buildings and all that, this problem would go away overnight. I felt the same way you do. But I feel convicted to truly heal the damage done to Anglicanism in the last couple decades, because this is the exact kind of work Christ calls us to do
@@Young_Anglican Thank you for understanding. May God bless you in your work.
If you are struggling to find a suitable church based upon the church founded upon the principles of the reformation, it may be because the reformation itself was a heresy. have you considered looking pre-formation? Perhaps the very early church?
@@wordforever117 I have definitely considered it. As it stands, I am not convinced that the reason Anglicanism is a mess is because it is based on heresy as much as because of the political context of the West (which has always been subject to a great deal of ideological and political division because of the geography and power issues). I anticipate that apostolic churches will struggle in their own ways in the next century as they become more publicly engaged with modern, Western institutions. But of course I may be wrong.
There are confessional Anglicans who obey their bishop(s) and there new evangelical Anglican transplants who have found a new home to define their own personal religion.
I promise I am not trying to troll you here. Your vlog has lots of wonderful information. That said, if you eliminated the phrases "I would say" and "we'll talk about that in a minute" the video would be half as long.
Lmaaaao this is true
@sub_umbra_alarum_domini thank you for recognizing that it was said in respect and charity, with no unkindness intended.
Is one’s religion supposed to be a hobby, like stamp collecting or photography, or a way of life?
50 minutes and I still don't get if you're more Reformed with Papist theology or Catholicism with reformed theology.
What denomination are you?
ACNA
Just go to your local supermarket and look for the anglican shelf....pick and choose whatever suite you.
There is no relationship between "more memorial" and "more spiritual" nor is there a difference between "real presence of Christ" and "spiritual presence."
Your phrasing was probably not intentional but it can imply these things. Can be confusing for new inquirors.
Sorry I often mispeak, thanks for the clarifying comment
@@Young_Anglican no problem. I assumed it was just a mistake.
He's young.
There is a difference between "Real Presence" and "spiritual presence," but it is that the latter is one conception of the former.
Elizabeth I spoke definitively: He was the Word that spake it, He took the bread and brake it. Whatever that doth make it, I do believe and take it.
25:27 This is because of how the Catholic Church views the Eucharist. That view is both species become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.
We know that’s what they think, and what the theology is behind it. We just think Christ’s authority is on a higher level than the church, and even if this is true, He still commanded us to take the Eucharist in both kinds.
@@danielkulju9836The Catholic Church firmly believes that the authority of Christ is on a higher level than the Church. They Church gets it's authority from Christ, so it cannot be higher than Christ. The authentic teaching of the Eucharist is entirely biblical.
@@wordforever117The Roman Catholic conception of the Eucharist is not the authentic teaching of the Early Church.
The 'lord's supper' is the agape meal not the Holy Eucharist. I used to be Anglican, now Orthodox - thanks be to God.
You seem to be very technical, what's wrong with Anglicanism not having its own identity???
What's wrong with that? We are Christians, there is broadness in the Christian communion, and Anglicanism prevents putting us in a restrictive box like most denominations.
It seems that the more I learn about church history and theology the more convoluted it becomes. From the very start, it was flawed. The 12 frequently argued among themselves, and Judas Iscariot was a thief and a traitor. The Corinthians
Just a catholic here
The (39) Articles of Religion are not binding on Anglicans, clerical and lay. We are supposed to believe the three historic creeds but they are shared with most of orthodox Christendom. So beyond them we are free to believe whatever we want about everything else.
Massive L, Aquinas and Augustine both taught the reformed view of predestination. Bishops and presbyters were intended to have equal positions of authority. Cope harder 😂 I’m jk
Low key you are right tho
@@Young_Anglican wait, so you are reformed, you're just more anglo-cath or apostolic anglican.
if so, super based. My friend is Reformed Anglo-Cath. He will use words like merit and holy tradition that would make a baptist cringe, but I've discussed these things with him and we're more similar than not.
I'm a relatively high church presbyterian (I affirm the perpetual virginity of the blessed mother of God) so I'm comfortable with the term reformed catholic.
Puritanism and Congregationalism are despicable to me. Not the people, just the theology. You should collaborate with zoomer more. Thoughts on reconquista?
@@keelanenns4548 yeah I would probably be more comfortable with Reformed language around Predestination now than I was when I made this video, (I have since looked into the history of Augustinianism and realized it is historic) but I am still pretty high church.
@@Young_Anglican glad to hear you came around to it XD. Stay high church, we need more of your kind
But why are you not Catholic like the early Christians?
He believes something more in line with what they believed.
so sectarian that the apostle Paul had to directly address the issue. Converted Jews, probably of the of the Pharisees, insisted that Gentiles must first become Jewish through circumcision and by following other Jewish rituals and practices, departing from the gospel message and creating divisions within the Church. As time passed, it became so entwined with philosophy and politics it became virtually unrecognizable. Today, everyone has their own Bible, and reads it through their own colored lenses, and with their own agendas, and the Church becomes more and more fractured. So, how can Anglicanism (or any other expression of Christianity), being seriously damaged goods, be a beacon of truth for anyone? How can the Church reclaim and adhere to the deposit of faith once and forever delivered to the Apostles?
Who cares
I mean...don't all modern Christians believe in some form of "predestination", don't we ALL accept the concept of "The Rapture" and the Second Coming of Jesus? That sounds "definite" to me. Beyond that, I would suggest you're more of a "Deist" than a strict Christian if you don't accept that Jesus will return to restore the ENTIRE flock, believers and nonbelievers alike.
I definitely believe in Predestination and the Second Coming, but that is not what the precise doctrine of the Rapture is. The Rapture is one hyper specific explanation of the Second Coming that was developed in the United States in the 1830s.
The rapture is an invention around 150 odd years old which has nothing to do with the Christian Faith - the Second Coming isn't the rapture. Predestination is a Calvinist heresy.
PLEASE COME HOME ENOUGH YOUR SERVICES ARE NOT VALID YOUR SYMBOL SERVICES ARE NOT VALID NO CATHOLICS CANNOT NEVER RECEIVE A SYMBOL
They were before 1896.
Which home might that be? It certainly isn't Rome. Not until it reforms itself.
You are morally accountable for teaching falsity. Henry VIII deserved more complete coverage in this presentation. You know EXACTLY what I mean. For your own salvation, get honest.
Your criticism doesn't make sense.
these are all just empty and ill-informed opinions. Read the Apostolic Fathers and some church history!
What a helpful and constructive comment that really addresses the points made in the videos...
Lol
"These are unillumined nous who cannot discern their prelest. Read the Desert Fathers and the Philokalia!" -The Greek East
"These are estranged brethren with questionable ecclesial bodies. Read the canons of Trent and Vatican II!" -The Roman West
At least give clarity to what trajectory you intended to veer into with your supposed advice. The Apostolic Fathers and the proceeding centuries have a great reverence among the Anglican tradition.
@@gigachad6524Reading the Apostolic Fathers is actually a pretty constructive suggestion in my opinion! Have you read Clement of Rome or Irenaeus of Lyon or Ignatius of Antioch before? Very inspiring!
@@wordforever117 I agree, but that's not what the original commenter says.