As an Eastern Orthodox, I recently attended the Easter Vigil service at a Catholic cathedral with a friend. It felt strange sitting on a bench instead of standing. And the service felt more glorious, whereas Orthodox services felt more mystical. But I really enjoyed listening to the organ playing and choir singing. And I appreciated the liturgy. It felt familiar to me. All in all, it was an interesting experience
@@darthkillhoon sadly catholic mysticism was always something of a niche in the roman church, an example is the condemnation of Eckhart... it's like the sufis in islam, really something of a chosen few... It is also true that it requires a lot of spiritual dedication, I think that the East knew how to handle it better but there is nothing to envy them, Western mystics continue to have a valid voice, actually timeless, and a very powerful wisdom that leads to union with God
I have been to Greek Orthodox and Russian. I do not find them to be at all close to Roman Catholic, and most certainly not in their understanding of the Trinity nor in their worship. To me the comment above from nikitosha! nailed it. I find the Orthodox church to be mystical. In fact very mystical and the Roman Catholic and Protestants are more glorious in their worship and nikitosha stated. Orthodox have much more ritual!!
One major difference between Orthodox and Roman Catholic clergy is that Orthodox clergy are allowed to marry, whereas Roman Catholic clergy cannot. Quite a significant difference, if you ask me. The exceptions in Roman Catholicism are that a widower can become a priest after his wife dies, but cannot remarry once he is ordained, and deacons can be married.
Anything outside of the modern protestant ted talks are good with me. Love to see any kind of Catholic-Orthodox solidarity in a world lacking in sacraments.
@@coreymatlak3989 as a Catholic(obligatory) I appreciate those Protestant Ted talk and rock and roll services for what they are. I get our way of mass isn’t for everyone and their form of worship certainly isn’t for me but they seem to still work in bringing people to the truth. Though I am deeply saddened my fellow Christians missing out on the Eucharist, I still appreciate our differences.
In the late 1980s I attended a church shared by Catholic and Anglican congregations. About once a month the Catholic and Anglican priests would say Mass side-by-side, each side would go to communion with their priest, and after Mass everyone would have coffee and donuts together. It really demonstrated how similar the two denominations really are, as the Mass was almost identical.
@@RandomPerson2609 ,,, as far as i know trinity is an old worshipping for some an egyptians who have worshipped ezice,authorice&hurce ,later on the church has abducted the notion&also The concept of a trinity predates the Bible. The concept of a trinity predates the Bible. The much older Hindu Vedas had a holy trinity.Called the trimurti, it was Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer, three individual deities that are also a single deity
Once I was talking to a devout Catholic. He said that a Catholic priest said to him that the Roman Catholic Church has eight sacraments. He asked the priest what the eighth sacrament was. The priest said "Bingo". The Anglican Church of Canada and The United Church of Canada have publicly stated that by 2040 they will cease to exist. A United Church closes down every week in Canada. The Catholic Church will still by around because a Catholic believes that by attending Mass he/she is experiencing something that you cannot get anywhere else. Liberal Protestant churches cannot offer anything unique. Also Filipino immigrants coming to Canada have kept a lot of Catholic churches alive.
@Ab99 For two hundred years Quebec was one of the most Catholic places in the world. Beginning in the 1960's Quebecois started leaving the Catholic church in droves. Today it is one of the most secular places in the world. People in Latin America, beginning in the 1960's, started leaving the Catholic Church. Unlike Quebec, many became evangelical Protestants. The pastor of the church that I attend, Jozef Jasinski, is from Poland. He was a Roman Catholic but got born again in Jesus. As a Catholic he smoked, drank, took drugs, and slept around. When he met Jesus he left the Catholic Church and became a Pentecostal pastor. In the downtown area of Edmonton there are various evangelical missions that feed the poor and homeless. Groups such as The Hope Mission, The Mustard Seed Church, The Salvation Army, The House of Refuge, and The Mission Hall. To be fair The Marion Centre also gives clothes and soup and sandwiches to the poor. Evangelical Protestants in Edmonton are doing more to feed homeless and poor Catholics, and others, than the Catholic Church is.
@Ab99 Despite my Anglo-Saxon name I am only half-white. I was born in Japan to a Japanese mother. I have relatives in Japan that are very dear to me. I am definitely not a white supremacist . At the Mission Hall there is a Native man, Glenn Davis, who preaches the gospel every Tuesday night. Until 1983 he was a Roman Catholic. He was a drunk and a drug addict living on the streets in Prince George, British Columbia. He heard the gospel, gave his life to Christ, and got delivered from booze and drugs. Since then he has been preaching the gospel of Christ. At the Mission there is a Native lady, Marlene. In 1963 she was a girl at a Catholic residential school in Kamloops. She was raped by a Catholic priest. She spent many years as a drunk and a drug addict. She gave her life to Christ and got delivered from sin. The gospel of Christ is for anyone; regardless of their ethnic background.
@Ab99 Protestant countries such as the USA and Britain had more religious liberty than Catholic countries such as Spain and France. Also Catholic countries gave us fascist dictators such as Marcos, Samosa, Pinochet, Mabuto, Mussolini, and Batista. Democracy came from Protestant countries. At the Mission we deal with people whose lives have destroyed by sin. One Monday night a man was preaching Jesus and a Native man ,about 60 blurted out ``My mother was raped by a priest ``We tell them that Christ died for their sins and they can be born again in Jesus. When you look at Quebec since the 1960`s it is obvious that many people are leaving the Catholic church.
@@HasanUnknown - the New Testament shares one thing in common with any other book. It can succumb to thieves ripping verses from it, and outside of the context in which they were given, be twisted by those who do not have the light of the Holy Spirit to support almost any kind of heresy. Rather then come here Hasan and attempt to use our Holy Scriptures as a weapon against us, prove yourself to be a man who truly seeks to be taught by God. Read the entire New Testament for yourself. Use no outside source to interpret it. After you have finished, read it again. Then, in a year, come back to us and tell us who you think Jesus Christ is.
sincere question John - why do you believe your church, like the catholic church - ignores Exodus 20:8-11 ? i was in a baptist church - this topic helped me to convert out of it.
@@tony1685 I'm not as knowleadgable on this topic as I'm certain he is, but I'd like to point you to Romans 14, in which Paul writes how for one man one day is more holy than the other, and how we ought to accept them for it is their belief/conviction
@@tony1685 Jesus did good on the Sabbath (see John 5:1-17) but the main reason is that we already don't do work on that day. We do set it apart (make it holy) for worship though.
@@jonathanvaladez5916 Paul actually kept Sabbath - Acts 17:2 and told all to keep God's Ten Commandments - 1 Cor 7:19 so are you saying Paul is contradicting God's Word in Exodus 20:8-11 ?? or perhaps is this speaking of another topic? if you'd like further proof, just let me know, Sir - it's obviously the 2nd. Paul isn't apostate, teaching sin.
I admire how careful you are to leave your personal biases out of these videos. One small thing is perhaps when mentioning the “Apocrypha” in a Catholic or Orthodox context, that you could mention that they call those books “deuterocanonical” as they are distinct from other apocryphal works like the Gospel of Thomas.
I would add .. the odd notion that 'Anglicanism' (the State Church of England) is - per se - closer to Catholicism than to State Lutheranism; it isn't. The confusion rests on the slow adoption of Roman ritualism (Anglo-Catholicism/ High Church-ism/ Old Catholicism) in the early twentieth century; this was and is still anathema to the Anglican spirit. And, though this may not be popular, it is further disorientated by the introduction and implementation of the New Order of Mass, CE 1969, which is currently largely Protestantised out of all Catholic recognition (still a common abuse, btw, despite the correctives issued under St John Paul II). Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek. God bless. ;o)
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13? I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh Clearly, Jesus Christ, Himself, in Person, at One with His Bride .. i.e. the Church (defined as one, holy, catholic and apostolic) .. is the standard, not least in sound words. The Church's Holy Bible is a key and central witness to this Faith, but the Bible belongs to the Church not vise versa. Baptism into Christ's Name is indeed necessary, that is how we are saved, for there is salvation in no other name; thus Rom 10 : 13, et al, affirms this; Baptism is, after all, what God does for us, as He did with Noah, whereas calling upon Christ's Name is our response to that grace, not a replacement for it, it is what we offer in prayer to the Lord God, Who shall indeed save us. God bless. ;o)
Nowhere in Romans 10:13 do I see anything resembling the interpretation: “Baptism does not save you,” therefore there is no contradiction. What you have is a situation where both are true. The prior verse talking about no distinction between Jew nor Greek helps us understand that verse 13 means Jesus is not exclusive to one particular people but to all who call upon him. This can actually be supportive of baptism when we understand that it fulfills the role of circumcision, such that initiation into the body of Christ is no longer by the distinctly Israelite practice of cutting the foreskin, but by washing with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and are circumcised in the heart, which, practically speaking, is much more accessible to any race (and gender).
@@killianmiller6107 Yes, that is the point K M. How can man call upon the Lord God without the grace to do so? For if they have not first believed on the Lord, Jesus Christ, they will not call upon Him (whether with the heart, or the lips alone). And .. such saving belief comes by hearing the Gospel (and accepting what it offers and commands); the Lord is Lord of all, the same Lord, over Cain and Abel, Abraham and Melchizedek, Herod and the Magi, Jew and Gentile, Athens and Jerusalem (not all accept what they have received, by way of divine blessing - though some do, many do not .. in fact not a few go farther, they reject even what they can know, as it witnesses all about them). What then was the Lord's missionary command to His Apostles and disciples before ascending to the heavenly Throne of Glory at His Father's side?
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13? I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@KarmaKraftttt Hi. Typically, in a discussion, a person will have a main idea with support. What did I say that seemed 'uneducated' to you? Thanks! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
I like the “emoting pope” too! The look on Pope Francis’ face on some of these denominations is hilarious! Very interesting and informative video, too!😊
Seventh-day Adventist, and you nailed Adventism. It's often overlooked in videos comparing denominations. You not only included it in your tiers, but you also accurately described it. Thanks!
i had to become Adventist, after 35 yrs of being catholic, and various other denominational investigations. it's the only church which believes in all Ten Commands - that alone is more than sufficient for anyone with a bit of Bible literacy and integrity. *Happy Sabbath!!!* this evening is when Christ and His followers recognize the Lords day, i pray It's a blessing for you and yours, Jerry.
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13? I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@dylangrubbs5969 Who am I talking to? I have been instructed by Christ to share the gospel with anyone who will listen - you, if you are interested. Thanks! In this video, it is as though the Catholic church was the standard of truth. Yet, I am of the opinion that Catholics distort the gospel and are therefore in serious danger of running into God's righteous anger. For example, Catholics claim that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Christ said, "My Father will give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." These are contradictory teachings. Which one is true? Most importantly, what do you think about eternity? Do you believe in heaven and hell? If so, how does a person get to paradise? Thanks for your post. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
As someone who is searching for a denomination to belong to after renewing his relationship with Christ, this channel is so incredibly helpful. I've been visiting many churches and researching and praying. While I feel drawn to the Catholic Church Im very fond of other denominations. I will see where He wants me to be but I'm very grateful for this video 🙏
I have been searching as well , i would seriously consider Pentecostal, there basically weslyan minus Christian perfection and they believe in divine healing
Begin with what you feel drawn to, see in person if it still "calls" you. In general, Catholic Churches don't make it easy peasy to convert and provide a lot of info , also it takes a year or more. So you will have all the time to see if this is your path while confronting with others. Take your time , take your steps and trust God, He will give you guidance.☺️
A lot of Protestants end up Orthodox, I feel. Because they have the confort of Tradition and the High Church.. but without the Pope.. which is (still) a sticking point for Protestants. The drawback however is that Orthodoxy is more "oriental", while Catholicism is part of the collective West's history.
*Truth invites investigation!* - catholicism runs from It ~ aways remember that, friend! if you love Jesus Christ - see John 14:15 then you'd go to a church which knows there are 10 Commandments and keeps all Ten - Sabbath included. or would we be wise to forget the Command which begins with _'Remember'_ ? this is the Command with the seal of God in It. It's the longest of all Ten Commands too! always ask questions, friend! former (35 yr) catholic, now Christian. GBY and yours!
I cannot tell you how much your videos have helped me, it would have took years of study at a library to learn what I have learned from your videos in the past few months. Your videos are informative, factual, and best of all completely impartial, I highly recommend them to anyone wanting to make an informed decision on what denomination they should support. Once again thank you and God bless you!
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13? I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Jesus did NOT give the authority to “bind on earth” to Paul-he gave it to Peter, the first Pope. Stop interpreting the Bible to suit your own beliefs. The Catholic Church has 2,000 years of history and is the ONLY Apostolic Church. Whatever make-believe Church you belong to was only invented recently and is only using man-made interpretations of the Bible to create its theology. People like you are the reason we have 40 thousand (+) Christian denominations: people who read one passage in ENGLISH and not in the original Greek, which St Paul wrote in. If you want to belong to some man-made Christian denomination, go ahead, but stop being so arrogant and putting your own spin on the Bible
@@BrowderFan "if you want to belong to some man-made Christian denomination, go ahead but stop being so arrogant and putting your own spin on the Bible" I'm confused, this statement is actually a pretty accurate description of the Catholic Church, so are you for Catholicism or against it?
Great Video. As a Catholic, I really enjoyed it and I think you were pretty much on the mark. One very small group you understandably left out were the Moravians. A fascinating denomination that claims to have apostolic tradition and date back to John Hus. So, like Catholics in one sense. Have you done a video on them? I am interested because my family came from Czechoslovakia where they originated but I also worked with an African American woman who was a member. They seemed to have reached out very early to all races. In fact, if I remember correctly, there was a terrible massacre of Native American Moravians by American revolutionaries.
Moravian has missionaries to the Cherokee nation when it was still all in the east. The Cherokee constitution enshrined Christianity as the state religion.
Tom, please please read this. Do you want the truth? Do you want the truth that the Holy Ghost might be convicting you about? If you have the guts think and pray about these things. God will not refuse a humble spirit. You can quote church fathers all day and it won't mean a thing, you cannot argue the facts below. Roman Catholics and Orthodox believe the bible......until you show them James 1:1 and compare James 2 with Revelation 14:9-12 which proves that James 2 DOES teach faith and work, but NOT for the body of Christ. This is because in the tribulation you must avoid the mark of the beast to be saved. But Paul very clearly teaches works are separated from salvation atleast for the church. Romans 4 4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Extremely clear, but I realize you Catholics have heard James 2 so much you don't even get this passage. And as far as other question you Catholics have to answer, there's plenty: ruclips.net/video/vgwC9uYdabo/видео.html ruclips.net/video/oz990ugwmlA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/4A0w0DoYeew/видео.html ruclips.net/video/rM0z0DL3lhc/видео.html
I was baptized in the Moravian church even though I didn’t know much about it or Christianity in general. (Sadly I lied in order to get married in the church) I didn’t let Jesus into my heart until much later, which oddly enough happened when I poured my heart out to the Jesus statue outside of my local parish. I am now Catholic. And when researching everything I started to learn more about the Moravian faith. From what I remember of the Moravian services it wasn’t much like the Catholic Church (seemed like Methodist services I’ve attended) but they were very lovely people with a very interesting history.
I agree. I live in the southeast and before I moved here, I’d never heard of it. I’ve been learning about it so my knowledge is very limited. I find it fascinating.
As an Episcopalian/ Anglican, I really appreciate this video and completely agree with our placement on the ladder. For myself, one of the things that drew me to Anglicanism was our closeness to both Catholicism and protestantism. As many have said, thank you for a wonderful video.
@@Chadlifter Henry VIII wanting a divorce from Catherine of Aragon but the pope saying no, causing Henry to turn away from Rome and embrace the Reformation.
I’m Jewish and I find this all so fascinating. Growing up, I only knew Christians and Jews. It seems the more I learn, the less I know. My wife was Presbyterian and she made sure to let me know there were major differences.
@Hold Fast Actually it is pretty straight forward- basically how liberally or conservatively do you interpret the Tanakh (or your Old Testament). Believe it or not, that’s basically about it.
@@chosenoneinakilt9495 Oh, they're big. I'm not Jewish myself, but I spent some time in Israel and there was no mistaking some of the groups for the others. Hasidim aren't like Samaritans who aren't like the African Jews. A lot of variety. The one that gets overlooked more is Islam. There are some pretty major factions yet it's presented as a united front by some people.
@@chosenoneinakilt9495 You should look up the Beta Israel community. They are Ethiopian Jews that have a expanded biblical canon, they reject the Talmud and even have a monastic tradition! They also observe holy days other Jews don't and accept the book of Enoch.
I’m a Jew who has recently converted to Christianity. If you truly want to know God, it is the only logical path forward. Real Judaism doesn’t even exist anymore because the Temple has been destroyed and there are no more priests to administer sacrifices. I highly encourage you to read of the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle to the Romans, the former shows that Jesus is the Messiah and the latter explains why we all need Him. Everything in the Old Testament foreshadows Jesus
I came across this on my feed and I thank you for an exceptionally well thought-out and executed video. I am Episcopalian and over the years I have noticed that many new members to the Episcopal (or Anglican) church are Roman Catholics who are comfortable with our worship style which is very similar to what they used to practice at mass...particularly when it comes to things such as kneeling during the service, genuflection and sanctification by crossing oneself. Some visitors to the Episcopal Church are confused when they hear us say, during the Nicene Creed, "...I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church..." They often mistake the lower case 'catholic' with the Roman Catholic Church. You have done an excellent job, my friend. You remind me of the college professors I had years ago in whose classes I would listen intently for hours on end with no lapse in my level of attention to what they were saying.
I found this very interesting. You are very knowledgeable. I am currently a member of the United Methodist Church. With the division in the UMC becoming so strong that very little ministry is actually being done, and many UMC churches and Bishops are not holding to the current Book of Discipline, I am researching other denominations doctrines. Praying for discernment as to where I feel God is leading me.
I'm in the exact same boat as you. I was raised a Methodist in the UMC, and although they don't view baptism and communion as necessary for salvation, they would still schedule mass baptisms for people who would volunteer and had communion on Easter and Christmas. As far as I know now, neither of those things aren't being offered or even practiced in the UMC churches near me. Once they allowed a literal lesbain pastor to preach about "LGBT issues" I literally walked out mid service and never went back. Finding a new church is tough.
Prayers ascending for you in particular. Although we've never attended any Methodist church, we appreciate your struggle to find a new local church. Blessings will follow as God leads you to a new local body.
I was Lutheran growing up, but left it for the Pentecostals in my early twenties, because of liberal theology. After 25 years I saw that Pentecostals, although serious in their convictions (which I liked), had a pretty shallow theological backing and continuity through history. So I became Catholic. But the journey still felt like a progression, although I agree with the list you’ve made.
Out of the frying pan into the fire. I went (lived or survived is more like it) through twelve God forsaken years of Catholic school. They are an abomination of hell. None of their traditions are in the Bible. Most contradict it.
If you believe in the authority of scripture, you can't be Catholic. Catholicism depends upon the authority of fallible church leaders as opposed to the inspired word of God.
I would imagine that prior to the influence of the Pietist movement, the Scandinavian Lutheran churches that never formally accepted the Formula of Concord may have looked a degree more similar to Roman Catholicism than the rest of traditional Lutherans at the time. They claimed apostolic succession, maintained strict episcopal polity, and in many ways probably looked a lot like High Anglicans today.
DeFyYing and Ethiopia. The main Ethiopian Lutheran denomination is Pietist too (second largest Lutheran denomination in the world after the Church of Sweden which have been excommunicated), except they’re low church compared to other Lutherans but are high church compared with other Ethiopian-Eritrean Evangelicals, they also share a a seminary, and are partial/full communion with Baptists, Pentecostals, and Mennonites, they’re also non-Episcopal (don’t have bishops), and are Evangelical in the Born-again sense.
@@thursoberwick1948 Tacitly affirming the RC claim that their camp has no denominational divisions by counting Sedevacs and other alt-Catholic groups as seperate, while everyone else on this list is grouped as a denominational family, wouldn't exactly be keeping up with the strived for neutral point of view. Sedevacantists, Old Catholic, SSPX, conclavists, etc are all Tier 0, Catholic.
@@RepublicofE Yes, I know where you'e coming from... however, I have found evidence that they have diverged, not only because the Vatican has changed its own policy since the splits, but because some of them like the Palmarians, and whatever Mel Gibson's outfit's called, have developed their own idiosyncrasies. I'm also aware of a group (don't know the name), which takes Marian doctrine way further than the Vatican and treats her as co-redemptorix, so if anything, that would be -1, i.e. diverging from the Vatican but out in the opposite direction... since the Vatican would find more common ground with some High Anglicans and Lutherans over that issue.
My mother was raised Quaker and my father was raised Swedenborgian, and naturally I expected them both to be very far down the list. I was curious which you were going to put further out, but given that you were discussing Quakerism at large and not liberal Quakerism, my home branch, specifically (which you said would have been further out) I definitely understand the decision you made. Cool to see them both mentioned though (even if Swedenborgian wasn't put on the actual chart), since this was the first video of yours that I've seen!
Quakers came from the "Anabaptists" who were never ever part of Catholicism. They are not protestants. But over the last 600 years they had quite a bit of protestant leaven sneak in.
Which church is closest to the Catholic church? The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13? I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh You will get more viewers if you move your response to "add a comment" rather than "reply" to my post. You make some good points, but they have nothing really to do with what I wrote, so your reply to me does not make much sense.
@@ThomasGMcElwain Hi. Thanks for writing. In your original post, you praised the speaker for the information provided. My comment was in response to the video's point of view. That is, it is irrelevant if a protestant denomination is closest to the Catholic church since Catholics preach a false gospel, leading millions to hell. Is that not germain to the topic of the video and your comment? That said, may I ask, what do you believe a person must do to enter heaven? Thanks! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh If you did not like the man's theology, address him about it and not me. I thanked him for factual information, even though I might disagree with his theology. That should not merit an attack from anyone, since I did not take a position on his theology or anyone else's. I asked you to address him with your concerns, assuming that you had pressed the wrong button. Obviously, you simply want to troll people. Not appropriate.
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13? I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh I love it when someone picks their favorite verse and demands that it is the pinnacle of the bible, rejecting all verses which show their error. The whole of the bible is true and many verses must be taken in some context for that to be so. For example Jesus said that those who love the least of his brethren will be saved (Matt 25:31-46). No one word about calling on him. Was Jesus right or was Paul? Until you can show that your theology points to them both being right in some sense, your theology is false.
@@kenshiloh I agree entirely that the Catholic Church is not the standard, but the Bible. I _disagree_ that teaching baptism as necessary for salvation isn't Biblical, or even that it's contradictory. We are to "believe and be baptized," and many Christians consider that to be a single command that is _not_ a "work." There's an excellent (and intellectually rich) debate on baptism uploaded here on RUclips. It's a televised debate from roughly the '70s between members of the church of Christ and Baptists, which even gets into the original Greek in order to explain the perspective. [ETA: A more streamlined way to describe it is that there are many Christians who believe baptism is necessary, not because they believe in "faith +," but because they believe it is "faith properly defined."]
@@jacksyoutubechannel4045 Is baptism necessary to be saved? Then was Paul lying when he wrote, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)"? Moreover, in Mark 16.16 it is written that if we believe and are baptized then we shall be saved. However, logically, only one of the two conditions are necessary. For example, I could say that with a million dollars and a rabbit's foot, you can travel the world. This statement is true, but a rabbit's foot is not necessary. Baptism is commanded by the Lord, but not necessary for salvation. The bottom line is, do you know the Lord? If you do not have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you, then you do not believe in Christ (This is the contrapositive to John 7.38). Christ died on a Cross so that, just by asking, we may know Him. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh Once again it's always about interpretation in the context of the whole. When he wrote, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)" Does that mean Satan worshippers who curses the Name of the Lord is also saved or was he a liar?
If it even occurred to me to try to research this tópico, I am sure I would have been so intimidated that I would never have finished. You did SO much research!
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13? I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@tony1685 lol and Protestantism is? It's that why the most radical churches are protestant churches? Lol 🤣 If there's something I will say it's that you're either ignorant of catholic teaching or unfamiliar with the Bible to be saying this
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13? I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@ReadyToHarvest Your welcome. On another issue, if you would like. I would be glad to work with you on a video or series of them about Messianic Jews, Hebrew Roots, and Sacredname groups. If you're so inclined.
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13? I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
I worked at a small Franciscan university for nine years. One day I asked one of the Franciscan priests what the main difference between Catholics and Orthodox was, and he said--without a hint of irony--"Well, the Catholics think they're right, and the Orthodox KNOW they're right."
well, the main difference between Catholics and Orthodox is that the orthodox are too self-centered to recognize that the papacy is in Rome and not in their city. probably a joke
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13? I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh Sola sciptura is not a biblical doctrine and also alien to the way of early church most of whom couldn't read. And see what Peter said to those who had perceived their need of slavation: When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call.” What I will do with Romans 10.13 is this: I shall call on the name of the Lord, swirtch off this machine and go to bed.
The Methodist doctrine of Christian perfection (entire sanctification) is analogous to the Orthodox doctrine of theosis. Catholicism affirms this too. I'm not sure why that connection wasn't seen.
I grew up Southern Baptist, but became Catholic who goes to an Ordinary Form of the Mass (Novus Ordo) that is mostly English but occasionally has Spanish or Latin. I have been to an Extraordinary Form Mass (Traditional Latin) before, and I’ve been to a German Mass. There are parishes that do the Mass in Spanish near me, but I’ve never went so far. There is an Eastern Catholic parish that have parts of their Divine Liturgy (which counts as Sunday Mass attendance for Westerners as Eastern Catholics are fully Catholic) in English, parts in Arabic and parts in Aramaic, but I have yet to go there.
You should go check out the Eastern Catholic service for sure. The Christian East remains a mystery to the majority of Westerners, and that's a shame, for it has much to offer the world. (I'm a born/bred Lutheran turned EO.)
@@raphaelsrgr Why read a book when God revealed to me that religions are all playgrounds for Satan? Stay away from religions. Just follow Christ. You don’t need man made rules. People are unable to follow Gods rules, so why do they want to try to follow man’s rules?
grew up as an anglo-catholic, there's definitely always been some tension within the anglican church between those who look more towards the catholic church and those who look more towards methodists and other more evangelical groups
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13? I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Yeah. It's sort of difficult to balance, because while I was raised in a relatively high church anglican environment, I am in theory very much against the catholic influence. Edited for spelling.
I thought your list was pretty good. I would have liked to see where you would have placed the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and their ecumenical partner United Church of Christ. I'm Roman Catholic and worked for about a decade for the CC(DoC). I think objectively they would be about a 5, but I found them to be surprisingly strongly attracted to Catholic worship. Also, the Polish National Catholic Church and the Union of Scranton Old Catholics might be right up there with the Eastern Orthodox, ahead of the Oriental Orthodox. The Union of Utrecht Old Catholics are a 3 and dropping. Interestingly, the Catholic Church (referring to the 20+ "sui juris" Churches all in Communion with the bishop of Rome) has experienced great progress toward real Eucharistic Communion (de facto if not formal corporate unity) with the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Internal division and the Russian invasion of Ukraine has scrambled the polity of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, with the Moscow Patriarchate seeking to usurp the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople as "first among equals" among the EOCs. The Vatican's recent cancellation of a meeting between the Pope and the MP is a strong indication that interaction with the Russian Orthodox Church has become radioactive, due to the ROC's outright support of the war and endorsement of a heretical "Great Russia" theology, repudiated by the other Orthodox Churches closely aligned with the Ecumenical Patriarch. Although the EP and the Vatican have very warm ties, the EP, who studied at the Pontifical Oriental Institute, will leave it at that for now. It may be a half-century before the EOCs resolve their divisions. A final comment: please remember that the Catholic Church is more than just the Roman Church. There are additional Western Rites, and 20+ "sui juris" Eastern Catholic Churches. Many of these ECCs identify as "Orthodox Christian in communion with the Church of Rome" (an identification criticized, not surprisingly, by the EOCs).
I'm a Methodist and I been to a Presbytarian church and I can say we are pretty similar. I can say for my church we tend to hold on to tradition, we do have bishops and have an episcopal structure, the Eucharist is very important and communion is held the first Sunday of every month, we do infant baptism, and my church also tends to be more liturgical as our tradition is based on the Anglican heritage. Also where I live Methodists are heavily involved in charity and good works. However, UMC churches tend to vary church by church. Some are more "liberal", some are more "moderate", and some are "conservative".
A lay person can go to a Methodist or Presbyterian Church and hardly notice the difference. Especially if they are English and Scottish extraction.....
@@kenwalker687 well yes and no. So as being confirmed United Presbyerian now PCUSA and in that denomination for years, I would agree with you on that in look and appearance. But in belief a mainline Presbyterian would be more comfortable say in regards to belief with an ELCA Church or UCC or another Reformed. Also a Reformed Episcopal or Anglican. Because we all have the same roots. Whereas the Methodist went as an offshoot of the Anglican holding to Holiness beliefs and Wesleyan tradition, which is more similar to Holiness and Nazarene. But on appearance yes I would agree. THE UMC Churches in the USA are very confusing, and much different than other Methodist churches.
I've been Reformed/Presbyterian all my life. I was baptized into The Reformed Church In America. The RCA is the daughter of the Reformed church in the Netherlands which my first ancestors belonged to and which came to America in 1628. Other early ancestors came to America from the Netherlands and were French Huguenots. The French church failed because there weren't enough French to sustain it and most French had married Dutch people and joined their churches I left it at 13 when my family left New York City for Florida. There upon I entered a desert period without church involvement. As an adult I felt a stirring to return to corporate worship. Unlike many people I studied all the denominations. I ended up where I'd started, The Reformed Church. I joined a church that was part of the PCUSA. I was there a few years until the Liberalism in matters ecclesiological, ideological and political turned me off. I started studying the different Presbyterian denominations and joined the Presbyterian Church In America. It was much more conservative than the PCUSA. Unlike the Church I was with before there wasn't as much high church custom. The Pastor didn't wear a Geneva robe and there wasn't a church calendar that dictated what color cloths were on the Communion table and pulpit. And no pictures of the very European looking Jesus standing outside a door knocking. There was more emphasis on the covenant between God and His people. The Westminster principles were taught. At that other church there were people who had never heard of the catechism and Christian education was not important. In this church it was very important. I'd had the Heidelberg Catechism when I was a boy and it was a great teaching tool. I had no problem reconciling it with The Westminster Catechism. Sometimes you have to travel to other lands to appreciate the one you were born into. If you're looking for perfection you're going to have a life of disappointments. The perfect church doesn't exist. The church is as perfect as the people in it. We are all flawed. Try to find someplace that meets most of your expectations. Life is too short to be miserable in it.
A great 'romp' through the main Christian denominations, their theology and praxis! Very helpful in understanding commonalities and differences! Thank you Joshua!
A most interesting video! Great information, and I definitely agree with most of what you said. I especially liked the Latter-day Saints being described as much further away from Catholics and the rest. Because we are!
It depends. In terms of the belief for the need for authority were a closer to Catholics and orthodox. On the subject of authority and keys the rest of the groups drop off dramatically.
I was raised Danish Lutheran (mom) & my dad was Irish Catholic. I grew up in a very fundamental community & many of these folks constantly told me that I was going to hell because I didn't believe the same way as them. I converted to Catholicism in college. I agree with your assessment, & as a Lutheran, I felt very little discrepancy between the way I was raised to the Catholic tradition. I would probably have put Anglicans & Lutherans both at Level 2. I dated a Methodist for a while & going to his church was rather shocking, as there really wasn't a liturgy. A little pamphlet was given to us upon entering church which was the instruction for the service. All of this was fascinating.
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13? I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh I love it when someone picks their favorite verse and demands that it is the pinnacle of the bible, rejecting all verses which show their error. The whole of the bible is true and many verses must be taken in some context for that to be so. For example Jesus said that those who love the least of his brethren will be saved (Matt 25:31-46). Not one word about calling on him. Was Jesus right or was Paul? Until you can show that your theology points to them both being right in some sense, your theology is false.
@@bridgefin First, it is your choice, but I urge you to be humble instead of proud. For example, your sarcastic remark, "I love it when someone picks their favorite verse and demands that it is the pinnacle of the Bible." Are you a proud person or are you humble, knowing that often, even daily, even moment by moment, you get things wrongs? I know that is my human nature and it keeps me humble. May the Lord do the same for you. You made a good observation, quoting from Matthew 25, "‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat,..." Great question: are we saved by taking care of the poor or by calling on the Lord? You are missing the heart of the salvation message. First of all, Jesus said that unless a person is born again, they will not enter heaven (John 3.3). Moreover, being born again is to be filled with the Holy Spirit, as 'what is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit. To be born again, we need only to ask, as Jesus said, "My Father will give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Conversely, if a person takes care of the poor, but has not been born again, they will not enter heaven. Hence, by simply doing good works, you cannot enter heaven, but you must be filled with the Holy Spirit. Moreover, Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." This is not a cosmic guilt trip, as in, 'if you really love God, you better get busy!' It is the exact opposite; it is a 'cause-and-effect relationship. If you love Christ, you will love other people. John put it like this, "For love is of God and everyone loves is born of God and knows God." In Matthew 25, notice, the first qualifications, "...you who are bless by My Father..." That is, a person who has been blessed by God will care for the poor. If a person does not love others, then they are not born of God. I have answered your Bible verse; will you extend the courtesy by answering Romans 10.13? What does it mean, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved"? Again, if a person calls upon the Name of the Lord, they shall receive the Holy Spirit (Luke 11.13) and a person filled with the Holy Spirit will love other people. Yet, is it true that simply by asking we will receive eternal life or does a person need to be baptized. Please explain Romans 10.13. I am not trying to win a debate here. I am concerned that you have polluted the pure, simple way that a person may be saved. I am concerned that you might be preventing people from entering heaven, being disqualified yourself. I cannot judge whether you are saved or not, but you have me genuinely concerned as I would earnestly love to see you in heaven. Thanks! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh You asked: Are you a proud person or are you humble, knowing that often, even daily, even moment by moment, you get things wrongs? Me: I don't get doctrines wrong because I don't try to establish them. I just retell wat the pillar and foundation with the keys to the kingdom says is true. You: First of all, Jesus said that unless a person is born again, they will not enter heaven (John 3.3). Me: That's my point. You can't just pick and choose your favorite verse and ignore the others which are not reconciled to that verse. You: Conversely, if a person takes care of the poor, but has not been born again, they will not enter heaven. Me: If that happened to me I would take Jesus to Matt 25 and ask for a hearing. You are stating that Jesus was wrong, or just forgot the message. If being "born again" or baptized was essential then Jesus was compelled to mention it in Matt 25. He didn't so why are you trying to pit Jesus against Jesus???? You: In Matthew 25, notice, the first qualifications, "...you who are bless by My Father..." That is, a person who has been blessed by God will care for the poor. Me: In other words, some may actually be blessed who were never baptized or "born again". And there is their potential ticket to salvation. You: I have answered your Bible verse; will you extend the courtesy by answering Romans 10.13? What does it mean, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved"? Me: Present tense so whoever is calling on the Name of the Lord. Not a one time deal but a continuous relationship when one recognizes their place before the Lord. And it also entails accepting/listening to what the Lord does or says in reply. And where are those answers? Many in Scripture and other in his church. And those who have ears to hear will hear. You: I am concerned that you have polluted the pure, simple way that a person may be saved. Me: I sometimes think that Protestants are half-wits who must make everything so simple because they can't deal with complexity. Sola this and sola that, almost always missing the reality of the gospels. Salvation is up to God and Jesus spoke rather at length at what one must DO in order to be saved. It was not simple, and it was not just in the mind or heart but demanded action. You: I am concerned that you might be preventing people from entering heaven, being disqualified yourself. Me: Likewise. You: I cannot judge whether you are saved or not, Me: But you are free to declare yourself saved. Blasphemy! As if YOU are Jesus who is the ONLY one who determines who is saved and who is lost. And it is not by some simple formula. The WHOLE of the Bible is true and until you accept every single verse you have accepted none of it. You: ....but you have me genuinely concerned as I would earnestly love to see you in heaven. Me: Please be more concerned for your own salvation. Out of charity I tell you that you would have been cast out of the early church as a heretic. You refuse to join the only church that Jesus established for our salvation. Hey, I am no saint but I am too weak and too smart to judge myself as saved. I will follow Christ and let him decide at the end of my life. And I invite you to really accept Christ on HIS terms by joining HIS church.
@@bridgefin Hi. Thanks for writing. I hope this conversation has not descended into a tug of war, but of each of us genuinely concerned about the fate of the other. Eternity is at stake. We will either enjoy the restoration of all things or will be cast outside, to howl with the dogs for all eternity. I pray that the Holy Spirit will lead us into unity of belief, according to the Word of God. Amen? You wrote, "But you are free to declare yourself saved. Blasphemy! As if YOU are Jesus who is the ONLY one who determines who is saved and who is lost." Yet, have you not read, "The Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God (Romans 8.16)"? That is, the Holy Spirit bears witness that I am saved! In fact, referring to the Holy Spirit, Jesus said, "Whoever believes in Me will have rivers of living water bubbling up to eternal life." Do you have those rivers of life? Do you know the Holy Spirit? Does He abide with you? I can testify of the Holy Spirit's assurance of my salvation with a totally true riddle: 'In the last 45 years, I have not doubted my salvation for even one second! Yet, forty years ago, I did doubt my salvation.' How is it possible for both of these statement to be true? The answer begins with my greatly beloved, but highly abusive father. About 40 years ago, he told me, "Not even God could love you!" I thought, "Yeah, I suppose you are right." Yet, before I could even finish the thought, I was flooded with the Holy Spirit Who bore witness that, through the blood of Christ, I am totally accepted by God. Out of curiousity, I timed my 'period of doubt.' My best guess is that it lasted for 0.34ths of a second. That is how I have not doubted my salvation for even a second, but I did doubt my salvation! God is so good! Yet, I am simply living out what is written in the Bible, that the Holy Spirit is my 'down payment', my total assurance of salvation, that I am seated in the heavenlies with Christ, that Christ and My Father have made their home with me (For more info on salvation, read John chapters 14-16)! No, I do not judge my own salvation. In fact, it is a challenge to rest in the good graces of God Who has declared me 'not guilty' because of the blood of the Lamb! Glory hallelujah! It is difficult to wrap my brain around my total acceptance by God. Yes, the gospel is simple. That is, by asking, you meet Christ. When you know Christ, you live to obey His commandments. If the Holy Spirit declares that you are child of God, then 'love never fails'; you will endure to the end. I never, ever have insecurities about my salvation as the Holy Spirit has judged me by the Cross and I am totally pure in God's sight. Who am I to argue with the Holy Spirit? Is God a good Father? If so, then why do you say that He is so distant? For example, if I am distant with my kids, not letting them know how they are doing until they are 18 and ready to move out of the house, is that a good dad or a dead beat dad? Doesn't a good father affirm his kids, give you a sense of security? What kind of father lurks in the shadows, unreachable, never attaining a sense of favor with him? Doesn't a good father tuck his kids in at night? Doesn't a good dad have lots of praise, but a good swat to the backside when needed? Yet, overwhelmingly, a good father pours out praise? I do not know the 'god' that you are worshiping, but he is not a good father, but distant and demanding. He is a deadbeat! Wouldn't you call any earthly dad a deadbeat if they behaved similarly? Yet, you can know God, Who created you for fellowship with Him! You can know God and rest securely in His love. If you haven't guessed, I did not have a supportive earthly father, but it does not matter. The Holy Spirit, those rivers of living water, pour over me, cleansing my soul of any hint of bitterness, providing me with perfect contentment every day (no, that is not a typo: I have perfect contentment). I am perfectly content with whatever God, my beloved Father, has for me. I love to do His will: through hard times or fun. By the grace of God, I am always content. I hope that you will get to know God! If you wait to the end of your life, I fear that Christ will say to you, "Depart from Me; I never knew you." It doesn't sound, at all, like you now Christ! You have no peace, as you wonder, at the end of the road, will you be accepted or condemned! I do not envy you, but you can know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Thank you for including Anabapitists on this list! :) It's a group that isn't brought up very frequently due to the disinterest in worldly things, but is good to be acknowledged as a group and a people. Generally, I would be extremely weary about mentioning Children of God, Eastern Lightning, etc. but I understand that in reference from _distance_ from Catholic practice, it might make some sense. I would like to mention that, even if the practices and understandings of each grouping may differ, we are all of the body of Christ, and are brothers. Certainly there is historical troubles among many groups, but is good to remind us that the _purpose_ of each group is not towards human concern, but in order to be pointed towards God. I simply see us as standing along side one another, pointed in that same direction.
No, we are absolutely not all part of the Body of Christ--not all brothers. Those promoting and believing a different gospel are accursed according to Paul in Galatians. They literally forsake Christ and instead choose to trust on their works and their false doctrines for salvation. That means at least 95+% of your "body of Christ" are not even close to being biblical Christians. Just because someone associates with the word Christ or has Judeo-Christian values doesn't make them in the Body. Be saved/trust on Jesus, be born again, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. If you trust in an idol and false Christ, you are deceived into false religion not a Christian.
Could not have said it better! The world is filled with religions/denominations that preach a Jesus that no way resembles our Lord and Savior that is in the Bible!! @@tannerfrancisco8759
Also as an Eastern Orthodox, I was very impressed by this video! I know that this is a predominantly a Western Christian channel, and I was afraid that you wouldn't include the Oriental Orthodox, who you not only included, but gave a great analysis (l love the point about the Miaphysite theology making them slightly farther from Catholics than Eastern Orthodox are). Though, think it's worth noting that the Oriental Orthodox are very diverse between the different national churches in terms of liturgy, which I know is a factor you were considering. The Armenian Rite in particular "feels" much more similar to the Latin rite (they use organs, their monks wear hoods, their art style is very Catholic, they make relatively less prominent use of icons than do Eastern Orthodox/Copts/Ethiopians etc.) than the others do. A few other small points: - You didn't mention the Assyrian Church of the East, who are a very historically important denomination, and are the most different from Catholics among the ancient liturgical churches. - You didn't specify whether you're only considering Latin Rite Catholics, or whether you're considering the various Eastern Catholics as well. If you were looking at e.g. Armenian Catholics, it would push the Oriental Orthodox closer than the Eastern Orthodox. - I would definitely agree with the suggestion you made in the video, that you ended up not going with, that Methodists are closer to Catholics than are Presbyterians/Reformed. It seems to me that Calvinist theology is so different from Catholicism that it should be further. Also, entire sanctification strikes me as having similarities to theosis, which is more associated with Eastern Orthodoxy, but also has a place in Catholicism. In any case, it would seem to me that Methodists have something analogous to a belief in saints, even if there isn't a specific canon of saints and they aren't venerated. - RE: LDS, I was very surprised to discover talking with an LDS friend that, despite the obvious enormous differences, they actually share some core beliefs with Catholics/Orthodox over Protestants: their ecclesiology is very Catholic, albeit the Church comes through restoration rather than Apostolic Succession, and salvation is a process, that is achieved through participation in the life of the Church. I don't disagree with your ranking, I just thought that was interesting to discover.
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13? I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh He used the Catholic church as the baseline because they are the largest Christian denomination. You could do this very same thing starting with any church and going progressively away from them.
@@DaveMiller2 Hi Dave. Thanks for writing. The Bible is the standard for truth. Since the Catholic church has gone apostate, it is like saying, "What is the closest thing to this counterfeit dollar bill?" It is an exercise in futility. However, when it comes to eternity, atheists are teaching that everything's over, Hindus are building karma, and the Catholics try to please God with good works. However, the truth of the matter is that God will judge the world in righteousness. If you have been a good person, you have nothing to worry about. Yet, if you have lied, stolen, and used God's Name in disrespect, you will be judged as a lying thief and a blasphemer. Unfit for the perfect social fabric of heaven, you would be cast outside with not only lying thieves, but with rapists, murderers, and torturers. In fact, Jesus said that those in hell will be tortured. In this present age, the government, corrupt as it is, protects us against being tortured. Yet, it is a gift from God. In hell, there are no courts, no police, and no jails. I hope that you know Christ! He died so that we can know Him, that we can be with Him instead of the just torment of hell. Do you know Christ? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh who do you think wrote the Bible? Which Church held councils to form the Biblical Canon, and why do you use a Bible that had removed entire books? The Catholic Church believes in Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium. The Catholic Church is older than the Bible, especially the mistranslated KJV. Stop worshipping the Bible as an idol.
@@j.alexander3001 Hi. Thanks for writing. You asked, "Who wrote the Bible?" Well, there was Moses, David, Matthew, Paul, John and many in between. None of them attended church in Rome and only Paul mentioned Rome - but with no particular bias. In fact, there were churches in Corinth, Ephesus, and other cities, so Rome is not the only valid church. That said, I am thankful for the Council of Hippo, for the codification of the Bible. The brothers in Rome did a great job! Yet, if you think, because the Bible became canon in Rome, that I should disobey the Bible because Rome says so, I don't think I will, thank you very much! In fact, Paul wrote that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, he should be accursed - how much more so the Catholic church! Paul also wrote, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." That is, just by asking, we can be filled with the Holy Spirit, born again, seated in the heavenlies with Christ, eternally secure by the Holy Spirit, Who bears witness of our eternal salvation (Romans 8.16). Judge for yourself: should I believe Paul or the Catholic church that teaches baptism is necessary for salvation? However, before you trot out Bible verses that, supposedly, 'prove' the necessity of baptism for salvation, please solve the contradiction! Is it true that whoever calls will be saved or do I need baptism to be saved? You do realize that both cannot be true! Suppose you produced a Bible verse that said, "Without baptism, you cannot be saved." You would only serve to prove that Romans 10.13 is a lie, the Bible being a lie, and the Catholic church supporting that lie! You cannot win, except to believe Romans 10.13 - and call upon the Name of the Lord! Christ died on a Cross so that, just by asking, we can know Him! I hope that you will! You are an enemy of God's, preaching a false gospel, leading others to hell, in grave danger of going to hell under God's severe wrath. Jesus warned you not to follow the traditions of men! Do not be a fool! Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you through the Bible, not trusting the blind to lead the blind! God wants to be your Teacher, your Friend, and your Guide! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
This was a great video, which just happened to show up on my feed. I am a Catholic Priest although I actually attended a Divinity School rather than a seminary. I'm pleased I chose to get my MDiv from a secular school rather than a denominational seminary. And I was in the minority in class. It was rather an interesting bunch of classmates (including some atheists!!!). I think that exposure to greater (and very different) ideas has made me a better priest??? Thank you for posting this video - it is highly informative and you seem to have done quite a bit of homework here. FYI: The Catholic Church, although synonymous with ROMAN CATHOLIC, for most people, are actually actually a family member of Churches, themselves having 5 particular churches and 23 different ways of worshiping. Wow, now's that's Christian diversity.
When are you going to become a Christian? Remember this poem as your pray the rosary. “I saw a lady with some beads, I asked her, ‘What are the beads for?’ She said, ‘We use these to venerate Mary’ I said, ‘Where are your beads to venerate God?’ She said, ‘We don’t have those?’“ God Himself gave me that poem. Or read this verse: “But when ye pray, use not vain REPETITIONS as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” Matthew 6:7 KJV In other verses, God calls repetitive prayer an abomination. Not only are you praying to someone (Mary) who certainly cannot hear your prayers, but your doing the very thing God doesn’t want you to do! Do you think leaders of Catholicism don’t know this? Of course they do! Catholicism = Antichrist Google Search “Papal Audience Hall/images” You will see your leader, speaking from a Serpent’s mouth. I was Catholic for 42 years. I never had a relationship with God, until I left Catholicism. As a Catholic I was like a fish swimming in dirty water. It wasn’t until I got out of the water and looked back, that I noticed how dirty the water really is. May you find the correct God soon, and stop the idolatry towards Catholicism. God Bless!
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13? I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh And again: I love it when someone picks their favorite verse and demands that it is the pinnacle of the bible, rejecting all verses which show their error. The whole of the bible is true and many verses must be taken in some context for that to be so. For example Jesus said that those who love the least of his brethren will be saved (Matt 25:31-46). No one word about calling on him. Was Jesus right or was Paul? Until you can show that your theology points to them both being right in some sense, your theology is false.
I'm Nazarene, which is a Wesleyan-holiness denomination. I don't know about other denominations in our tradition, but I'm pretty sure that we are a lot closer to catholics than the reformed. I can't think of a way we aren't.
@2:11, We refer to the extra 7 books as deurocanonical books instead of apocryphal books. We do think there are apocryphal books such as the Gospel of Thomas but those 7 extra books in the catholic canon we refer to again as deurocanonical. Some eastern churches would even have a canon beyond the deurocanonical books.
Really great video. Well thought out. I definitely put Methodists slightly closer than Presbyterians (which I am), mostly because of the supra-congregational polity and their liturgical connection to Anglicans. I became a Presbyterian almost 24 years ago when it was becoming a lot more liturgical (which I am meh about). I do agree that in the past there was a relationship with the local community around a church that was similar to a parish structure which different now.
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13? I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
So Michael, I was christened Methodist and confirmed and raised United Presbyterian which is PCUSA now. Any Presbyterians that are not PCUSA or PCA the mainline denominations are offshoots of the Presbyterians and the Church of Scotland. So they may be very far in doctrine and practice from the mainline denominations. Example Orthodox Presbyterian, Reformed Presbyterian and others. The Church of Scotland ( the mother church of Presbyterianism) with its founder John Knox was a Roman Catholic priest. The Church broke off and became Protestant. And with that was formed the Westminster Confession. And also you are wrong, The Church of England did subscribe to the Westminister Confession of Faith originally. The Westminster Confession of Faith is a Reformed confession of faith. Drawn up by the 1646 Westminster Assembly as part of the Westminster Standards to be a confession of the Church of England, it became and remains the "subordinate standard" of doctrine in the Church of Scotland and has been influential within Presbyterian churches worldwide. In 1643, the English Parliament called upon "learned, godly and judicious Divines" to meet at Westminster Abbey in order to provide advice on issues of worship, doctrine, government and discipline of the Church of England. Their meetings, over a period of five years, produced the confession of faith, as well as a Larger Catechism and a Shorter Catechism. For more than three hundred years, various churches around the world have adopted the confession and the catechisms as their standards of doctrine, subordinate to the Bible. Now regarding your claim about Methodists and Anglicans, I understand. But remember Methodist were an off shoot of Anglicans, Anglicans also were Reformed and Methodist are not. Also Presbyterians are Confessional or Creedal just as Anglicans and Lutherans are. The Methodist, Congregational and Baptists are not. Presbyterians were also remember the Roman Catholic Church reformed, however they had close ties with the Church of England, and The Church of Scotland was a break away. Regarding the Puritans. They were only influential in small amounts of Presbyterians along with Congregational and Baptists. This is the reason many Presbyterians during colonial times that came from Scotland to the USA would not attend a Presbyterian church influenced by Puritans, it was too different. Many times they would actually attend and Anglican church, as it was closer and akin to their Church of Scotland. St Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh Scotland is the mother church of Presbyterians. You should look them up and observe their services. In fact one of their student ministers now, is a African ordained Anglican Priest. You may also want to look into the agreement that the Roman Catholic Church has with the Church of Scotland since May 2022. It is called the St Margaret Declaration. This is a big move for both denominations. Again the Church of Scotland is the mother church for Presbyterians. Hope this helps.
@@lufhopespeacefully2037 The bible is not broken down into "every important historical fact between 1000 BCE and 70 CE" "the entire theology of Christianity" "The complete biography of Jesus" "How the church at Rome was founded." Lots of great details were left out. It's clear that Jesus wants us to baptize new Christians and to share bread and wine with each other, but provides rather little details about how we should do this. Did Jesus want us to form churches? We depend upon those who wrote systematized theology to explain the barely or unexplained. This is different than using tradition and lore and lifting it to the level of scripture. If the Father existed before the world and Jesus assisted in creation and the Spirit lived before creation, then they are all of the same substance, not created or made, the Godhead. We can know the Father through the scripture which is inspired by the Spirit and Jesus said that because we know him, we know the Father.
@@MichaelJohnson-vi6eh , ,so u indirectly admitted that trinity is man made ,therefore christianity also the same thing bc it`s based on trinity,,as far as i know trinity is an old worshipping for some an egyptians who have worshipped ezice,authorice&hurce ,later on the church has abducted the notion&also The concept of a trinity predates the Bible. The much older Hindu Vedas had a holy trinity,peace mich
Unless we wanted to consider the ancient heresies, like the Ebionites or the Valentinian or Sethian Gnostics. Would love to see a video that included them.
@@andresmartinezramos7513 I think it is because the later splits weren't really splitting from Catholicism itself, but from a group that split from a group that split from Catholicism etc., so they are oftentimes several degrees separated.
Like many of your other videos, I don’t agree 100% with your conclusions, but I strongly admire your attempt to address sensitive issues fairly. I wish you were a mainstream journalist!
Very interesting topic. I agree with your order based off of beliefs and practices. I wonder how the order would change when taking into account movement of members from one denomination to another. My husband was baptized Amish, but now attends a Catholic Church with me, and he’s mentioned that he feels they are much more similar than many of the higher ranked denominations. Thanks again for your very thoughtful work. Happy Easter!
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13? I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh I see the game you are playing. So here goes: I love it when someone picks their favorite verse and demands that it is the pinnacle of the bible, rejecting all verses which show their error. The whole of the bible is true and many verses must be taken in some context for that to be so. For example Jesus said that those who love the least of his brethren will be saved (Matt 25:31-46). No one word about calling on him. Was Jesus right or was Paul? Until you can show that your theology points to them both being right in some sense, your theology is false.
It’s nice to see Anabaptists actually be included in the discussion of the Christian faithful; props to this channel and the work you do, it is important and helpful for the entire Body of Christ!
This is a very accurate list. There is only one Church I would say I would put radically differently. That's Pentecostalism. I live in a country famous for Catholics converting into Pentecostalism and vice versa, and I gotta tell you, the differences really are not that big as long as you are willing to take actual practice into consideration more than just looking into historical context. For example, modern Catholicism contains Holy Spirit Renewal movement, which is a massive movement much bigger than most entire denominations outside of it. Literally, hundreds of millions of Catholics are a part of it. This movement preaches gifts of the Spirit as essential part of Christians life including tongues, it emphasizes join worship meetings and private reading of the Bible being main source of believer's faith, includes the post-baptism experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit as a major event in every true believer's life, and is characterized by a very Pentecostal-like worship style, even during official Catholic Masses. The Church isn't some borderline non-Catholic extremism either, at least that's not how the magisterium perceives it, as several consecutive Popes have whole-heartedly embraced the movement and even stated officially that they wish their practices, including the baptism in the Holy Spirit, were spread throughout the whole Catholic Church. If you compare these positions with the Pentecostals, and stack it on top of other pre-existing similarities like the fact they both believe salvation can be lost etc, I'd say they rival the Orthodox for number 1 spot, or at the very least - Lutherans, for number 2 spot. Of course, if you focus on historical Catholicism which would reject vast majority of this even 50 years ago, your list is much more accurate. But like I said, with hundreds of millions of Catholics being engaged in this, and the magisterium welcoming that with open arms, I don't think this is something that can be ignored.
Yes exactly this. I found my love for God in pentecostal faith, and catholism is the only faith that draws me now. For the very reasons you expounded on.
Grew up Methodist and was always uncomfortable with some points of their doctrine. Left and started coming to church of the Nazarene, which was similar but seemed more grounded and adherent to Scripture. Recently attended Catholic Mass and my word, the worship just hit different. There wasn't a lot of meet & greet with neighbor interaction it was nearly entirely focused on raising our minds, souls, and spirits to commune with God. I did miss the love they neighbor vibe many protestant churches have but I get the Catholic vibe also.
What you described has a name in the bible--witchcraft. Using works of the flesh to achieve a spiritual result and manipulating people's emotions to feel as if something is happening but is not of God is witchcraft. Catholicism is the brainchild of a bunch of homosexual pedophiles combining idolatry, paganism, and plutonic philosophy with out of context biblical references sprinkled in occasionally. It's why the Spirit of God hasn't been in it for 1600 years.
I'm Catholic. A lot of people have indeed complained that our churches aren't interactive enough, but I think that a lot of that is just to do with the fact that, as you said, it's really more of a God-oriented service. The whole point of Catholic communal worship is the Mass and the Eucharist. A Catholic church is definitely a place where you have to be quiet to show reverence. Fortunately, many churches have good social programs outside of worship, like youth groups, etc. But even on this, I admit that Protestants typically do a better job.
@@tony1685 Well, maybe it's not Christianity under a Protestant interpretation of the Bible, but Catholics have been reading the Bible for 4 times as long as Protestants, and we've never found a conflict between our faith and the Bible. In fact, if you don't believe in the Bible, you can't be Catholic, because believing in the Bible is a fundamental part of our religion. Now, if you believe that one must believe in sola fide to be a Christian, then I guess you could say that we aren't Christian by that definition. But sola fide has never been a part of the Christian faith before the 1500s. Numerous passages in the Bible, including the second chapter of James, Matthew 25:31-46, and others make it clear that sola fide is not true. By any normal and biblically-accurate standard, we are Christians.
Love your videos! I really appreciate you using Latter-day Saints instead of Mormons this time around. Your respectful approach is one of your hallmarks.
"I'm a Mormon" was all over billboards several years ago? Or has that fallen down the memory hole? This was Russell M. Nelson's personal hobby horse. He was even slapped down for it by Gordon B. Hinckley thirty years ago, but he gets in and does it anyway. There is nothing offensive about the word Mormon, in fact it derives from the name of the book which missionaries give out. Actually the LDS does have some similarities to Roman Catholicism and the most obvious example is unquestioning acceptance of the leader in many cases.
@@thursoberwick1948 Haha, just wanted to say thank you for the shift towards a more respectful approach. In my experience, when a person or group says they don't want to be called a certain name, even if they were fine with it (or even encouraging of it) in the past, it's a respectful thing to honor that request. I have an appreciation for you, too. Elder Nelson's 1990 talk on the name of the Church was wonderful, and apparently President Hinckley thought so, too. If telling everyone "Six months ago in our conference Elder Russell M. Nelson delivered an excellent address on the correct name of the Church.... I commend to you a rereading of his talk," counts as getting slapped down, then I hope that I get slapped down by a prophet someday. Thank you for pointing my attention to both of those wonderful talks.
@@scotthuff2051 It is RMN's personal hobbyhorse and not a sudden revelation. It is not an offensive term at all, and easier for most people to remember than the alternatives. It was sad to see all the profiles on the "I'm a Mormon" website pulled down, and then some of the same people coming out and saying they were never Mormon in the first place. (Despite its use by every president beforehand, Bruce R. McConkie and others like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, which now has a bureaucratic sounding name.) Nothing "respectful" about it. Nelson should have taken the advice Hinckley gave him, instead of obsessing over it and create an analogue to speech issues elsewhere.
@@thursoberwick1948 “And so, brethren and sisters, when you go away from here, you may be associating with various denominations of the world, but remember that there is only one Church in all the world that by divine command bears the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord D&C 115:4 I am sure we will show our appreciation of that great and wonderful name by respecting it, and not be found calling ourselves Mormons as the world nicknames us.“ -George Albert Smith, October, 1948. Nelson’s initiative is not a new thing; and as you doubtless know but neglected to elucidate here-while the church has always distributed the Book of Mormon, it was the church’s detractors who first used the term as a descriptor of the church’s followers. Also: as Mr. Huff has shown, Hinckley’s citation of Nelson was *positive*; the tenor of Hinckley’s October 1990 address was simply “the term probably won’t go away; and you live so that you are living in such a way as to be a credit to whatever name the world chooses to place upon you”. In fact, in that talk Hinckley expressly agreed that “I sometimes regret that people do not call this church by its proper name”; and in February of 2001 a First Presidency letter bearing Hinckley’s signature reiterated the directive to use the full name of the Church. Your muckraking attempt to make it look like there was some kind of rift between Hinckley and Nelson, comes across as rather incomplete-at least, to those of us who spend our time reading conference addresses rather than the rantings of people like Jana Reiss (from whose 2018 column I suspect you are cribbing most of your talking points).
@@thursoberwick1948 You know things are serious when Bruce R. McConkie shows up, lol. I'm not sure why you are so invested in the topic, but as for me, even if this was a hobbyhorse, I'd rather follow a prophet's hobbyhorse than the wisdom the world has to offer.
I was raised in a United Methodist Church and once I was invited to church with my friend's family. They were Anglican-Episcopalian. Somehow I got roped into being in the choir that Sunday. It was a little tricky keeping up with the different traditions and less familiar songs in front of the whole congregation. 😄
I went to a seminary (Saint Paul University in Ottawa, Canada) that was run by the Catholics, but had departments for Anglican, and Eastern studies. The Eastern people were mainly Ukrainian Catholics, although there were others, including some Orthodox. We all took the same courses from the same professors who could be any of the three. Theologically, we were all if not identical, as close as one can be. There were some practice differences (e.g., the easterners standing for worship), and Anglicans having female clergy. But, Theologically, we were super close. Anglicans officially do NOT consider ourselves Protestant. We never actually protested anything. Anglicans are "catholic, and reformed." Catholics basically reformed themselves with Vatican II, so we really are very close!
This is so cool! I love that different branches of Christianity and study together and respect one another’s differences for the sake of all that we agree on :)
I'm Catholic(and from Ottawa)and my very religious mother took us to an Anglican Church for 3 years when we lived overseas. Because it had a much better sense of community than the Catholic churches near us(one of them had an hour long service every hour on the hour, it was brutal). I think that the Venn diagram of Anglican and Catholic parishes has a lot of overlap, especially because most Catholics(in Canada at least) are more liberal than the church is officially (trying to avoid schisms is certainly a problem, the Catholic church at the UofO, has actually marched in the Ottawa pride parade). I normally attended a very liberal(but older congregation, the church was built shortly after V2 when the neighborhood was being built) Catholic church in Ottawa, we actually had regular guest priests including a priest with the interfaith housing initiative, and a professor from St. Paul's(who gave a homily at the Easter vigil about punctuation which still stands out as excellent 10 years later). I think the only Catholics I know(like actually know, not just as a priest I've met)who have been ordained in the last 30 years, actually converted to Anglicanism(but then they were both women so 🤷♀️). Honestly I think that is a really big problem now, because the clergy is becoming more conservative(and many are either converts to Catholicism or are immigrants from more conservative countries) at the same time as parishioners are becoming more liberal.
@@klondikechris Who said I'm Anglican? Biblical Jesus - eternal life - complete forgiveness - permanent right standing with God ' peace and assurance Roman Catholic Jesus - conditional life- partial forgiveness - uncertianty , fear, foubt and false hope. 1 John 5:13- These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God: that you may KNOW you have eternal life, and that you might BELIEVE on the name of the Son of God.
Catholic convert here, I grew up Presbyterian. I think Methodists are slightly closer to Catholic than Presbyterians. Otherwise I agree 100%. Thanks for the great video!!!
Bill, I have a challenge for you. Do you want the truth? Do you want the truth that the Holy Ghost might be convicting you about? If you have the guts think and pray about these things. God will not refuse a humble spirit. You can quote church fathers all day and it won't mean a thing, you cannot argue the facts below. Roman Catholics and Orthodox believe the bible......until you show them James 1:1 and compare James 2 with Revelation 14:9-12 which proves that James 2 DOES teach faith and work, but NOT for the body of Christ. This is because in the tribulation you must avoid the mark of the beast to be saved. But Paul very clearly teaches works are separated from salvation atleast for the church. Romans 4 4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Extremely clear, but I realize you Catholics have heard James 2 so much you don't even get this passage. And as far as other question you Catholics have to answer, there's plenty: ruclips.net/video/vgwC9uYdabo/видео.html ruclips.net/video/oz990ugwmlA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/4A0w0DoYeew/видео.html ruclips.net/video/rM0z0DL3lhc/видео.html
I am RC and often enjoy worshipping with Methodist's. I like their simplicity and their Wesleyan History which empowered people through education and cooperation.
As a "Church of Christ" person, I totally concur. I've always felt more in common with Catholics and Orthodox when it comes to doctrine,than the Reformed mainstream denominations. I'll point out the Orthodox also don't use instruments.
you do have a lot 'in common' with catholcism - both of your churches ignore Exodus 20:8-11 and follow the pagan papal sun worship day, as opposed to the Christian 7th day Sabbath, the only Holy day set aside by our Creator. so you're actually honoring the 'pope' rather than God when you pretend today is the Holy day. Bible is clear on this, Jim. former (35 yr) catholic, now Christian and Bible teacher. thanks for reading.
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13? I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@tony1685 There seems to be a strong misunderstanding about why many denominations hold their meetings and worship services on Sundays. As someone who attends a Church of Christ, we don't claim (or in your words "pretend") that Sunday is the Holy Day, nor do we follow some "pagan papal sun worship day". Meeting together on Sunday goes back to the New Testament church often meeting on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2). We don't claim it is the Holy Day, rather we are modeling after the early church and Paul.
@@mostlikelyaperson2022 hi Ma'am, thanks for your input - but the 7th day is a day for _'holy convocation'_ (gathering) as Leviticus 23:3 tell us. and if Paul kept Sabbath in service - Acts 17:2 - shouldn't we? and if Jesus Christ keeps Sabbath in service - Luke 4:16 - shouldn't we? Acts 20:7 doesn't say they were in service, only that Paul was with them for his final time. we know Paul kept Sabbath in church. and 1 Cor 16:2 - this wasn't speaking of church on sunday either - notice in Acts 18:1 - Paul went to Corinth - this is the same place and time. now read Acts 18:4 - how it states that he was in service _'every Sabbath'_ and there were both jews and greeks there. so if you want to follow the True church - be sure to obey the 7th day Sabbath Command from Exodus 20:8-11. this Command also shows all that the sunday is only one of '6 work days'. if you do this, then naturally the Holy day is the day you'd like to spend in church! thanks for reading, Ma'am. always ask questions!
@@MB-fk5mg Hi. If you will let's look at the Bible as God inerrant Word. For example, what does the Bible say about people who are saved? They obey the Lord, the bear fruit, they endure to the end, etc. Combine those truths with Romans 10.13, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." That means that whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall bear fruit, obey the Lord, and endure to the end - otherwise, according to the Word of God, they would not be saved. Conversely, we could confidently say that no person in hell tonight truly called upon the Name of the Lord. How does this all fit together? Let's look at more verses that describe the salvation experience. For example, concerning the Holy Spirit, Jesus said, "Whoever believes on Me will have rivers of living water bubbling up to eternal life." Obviously, the word 'believe' has a deeper meaning than is often associated with this verse. In fact, let's combine this truth with John 17.3, "This is eternal life, that you know God and Jesus Christ Whom He has sent." Since whoever 'believes' is saved and salvation is knowing Christ, then 'believing' implies knowing Jesus Christ. In fact, if a person is not filled with the Holy Spirit, if they do not have those rivers of living water, then neither do they believe in Christ, neither are they saved! Jesus said, "My Father will give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Do you not see the 'ask and receive' nature of salvation? Simply by asking, you receive the Holy Spirit and simply by calling, you are saved. Moreover, the Bible describes salvation, that we are seated in the heavenlies with Christ, that we boldly enter the throne room of God through the blood of Christ, that the Holy Spirit bears witness to our salvation, and that the Holy Spirit is our 'down payment', our taste of heaven, our assurance of salvation. All this, from simply calling on the Name of the Lord! Of course, after you are saved, it is good to be baptized! Those who know Christ obey Him! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Pretty much exactly the list I had in mind other than you added ones I wouldn't have thought of. I always appreciate how factual and unbiased your comments are.
A couple of thoughts: 1. You have relatively recent Catholic spinoffs. In the 1870s, there were the Old Catholics or Polish National Catholics that disagreed with the teaching of Papal infallibility that came out of Vatican I. Then in the wake of the Vatican II changes to the liturgy and rejection of the more conservative positions of the Council of Trent and several Popes, there was the rise of the sedevacantist group, which holds that the Papacy has been vacant since the death of Pius XII, and of the SSPX and SSPV groups. The Old Catholic split was on the "left" and the post-Vatican II split was on the "right", yet both agree on the teachings of pre-1870 church councils, the church doctors, and Popes and believe in apostolic succession. They nay be 1a, and the Eastern Orthodox groups 1b. 2. Historically, the Anglican Church provided common ground for three factions: the High Church or Anglo-Catholics, who accept the teachings of the pre-Trent Catholic Church; the Low Church, which is more distinctly Protestant, and which in turn is split between Calvinist and Arminian/Wesleyan factions; and the Broad Church, which is theologically liberal unlike the other two factions. The Episcopal Church in America is dominated by the Broad Church faction, and the next largest Anglican faction in the U.S., the Anglican Church in North America has both High Church and Low Church elements. My late mother in law attended a Low Church Episcopal parish in the 1930s, and when she became a Presbyterian upon marriage, she noted relatively little difference in the worship style, other than the black Geneva robes Presbyterians favor.
So far I agree with your list. Catholic and Lutheran liturgy are very similar. The Catholic songbook even contains "A Mighty Fortress is Our God", Martin Luther 's seminal Reformation hymn.
An interesting contact between Anabaptist and Catholic thought has come through the general work of Stanley Hauerwas and John Howard Yoder. They both spent a lot of time teaching at Notre Dame. Yoder's life has come under a lot of scrutiny and rightfully so. Many of Hauerwas's doctoral students (and other levels of graduate school students) at Duke have been Catholics with an affinity for Anabaptist thinking or reformed students with a deep interest in Catholicism. Many of his doctoral students eventually joined the Roman Catholic Church. In both cases, these scholars have often gotten teaching positions and present this outlook in Catholic and Protestant settings of higher education. I studied at Dayton (where this was a reality at both a faculty and graduate student level) without really falling into any of these camps. I liked learning more about Lindbeck and linguistic philosophy but ... this was not and has not been my path.
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13? I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Very interesting video! As an anabaptist Mennonite that leans conservative it is funny I often see more in common with my Catholic and Orthodox brothers than those in the middle of your list. Perhaps it is due to the Catholics commitment to their theology while so many others are progressivising
@@sniperpronerfmods9811 These men were used by God so we might have a record and prophesy. They were used by God at specific times and for specific reasons/warnings so as to direct His people in the correct direction and to provide understanding. It is God's desire that all be saved .......that all have the choice. Obviously, not everyone has had the calling that Moses, Isaiah, John, or Paul had! But we do all have the commission to witness and to spread the gospel message as revealed in scriptures.
I am notngoing down you "woke rabbit hole " we the Knights are a service organization that does humanitarian work world wide . At present in the Ukrainian / Polish border providing meals a rest stations to the people fleeing the War. Here in NC we have provided 87,000 meals to anyone who need help with food during the Epidemic.
@@ronaldbobeck1026 I was just asking to see if you go to the events in D.C. I neither implied nor meant any offense to the legacy of Christopher Columbus.
Very interesting. In studying the Amish, I noted the use of "Ordnung", or Order for the church rule to which each baptized community member must abide. They have different manners of dress, and different modes of transportation in each group. In this way, it's like an order of monks or nuns in Catholicism, except they are married.
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13? I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh I used to be Baptist and am now moving towards Eastern Orthodoxy. I'm not Catholic, I'm just noting how Anabaptists took a feature of monasticism and made it for married couples and families. Surely you've noticed Franciscans have brown robes while others have black robes. They have various "orders" of monks and nuns. It's just historically interesting that the group that's about as anti-Catholic as possible used that same structure of having an "order" people join. Orthodox don't have the same view of Baptism as Catholics. It's the replacement for circumcision, but since we don't believe babies or children have sin that would put them in hell, there's not any fear of dying unbaptized. The thief on the Cross was not baptized, but Jesus said you must be born of the water and the Spirit to be born again when he was talking to Nicodemus. Just remember many will say Lord, Lord and not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. We shouldn't judge others, even Catholics who have a lot of additions to the original apostolic faith, nor Protestants who deny Christ's presence in the Eucharist. What a trick of Satan to convince Zwingli that it was just "in memory". Read the last part of John 6 to see what I mean. The Israelites ate the Passover lamb. Blessings!
@@OrthodoxInquirer Hi. Thanks for writing. Speaking of John 6, Jesus said, "It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you, they are spirit and they are life." That is, Jesus' words are not about physical bread, but about being born of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, if you are going to say that communion is necessary for salvation, what do you do with Luke 11.13, "My Father will give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him"? If you add things to the gospel, you negate the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. Furthermore, if you are going to say that Jesus is actually bread, are you also claiming that He is a rock, a vine, and a water fountain? God continually used metaphors about Himself which, when taken literally, becomes an absurdity - for example, Jesus is a loaf of bread! Most importantly, if someone had 60 seconds to live and asked you how they could get saved, what would you tell them? Thanks! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh Some of the verses you quote have to do with salvation being opened up to the gentiles and not just the Jews. Whoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved does not mean that people can't lose their salvation, it means salvation is open to the entire world. Look at the context. If someone had 60 seconds to live, I would have them repent and call on the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. I would also try to baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. My dad had a near death experience, saw Jesus, and came back and told us he wanted to be baptized. He never got "strong enough" to go get into the baptismal pool at church. Someone should have just sprinkled him but they didn't because they didn't think it was important, and he died unbaptized. God is merciful and I don't think it automatically sentenced him to hell, but the minister(s) surrounding him had bad theology and didn't even offer to baptize him in the hospital bed. They didn't know it gives forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit even though it says it right there in the Bible. The Western traditions and especially Protestants have a lack of appreciation for being able to strive for holiness. That stems from not having fasting rules, prayer rules, or spiritual fathers (by rules, it's not one rule for everyone, but a suggested course of action given by the spiritual father for that specific person). Protestants have seen the problem, but they are making up their own approaches like the Daniel fast during January and having mentors volunteer to pair up with new Christians. Everyone is buying various books on prayer and doing various things but do people really pray for half an hour if they have to think of all the words themselves? Has the West really benefited from doubting the Bible and trying to judge all the ancient traditions? It's very prideful for people to say the Holy Spirit has given the person an understanding of a certain passage just based on reading the English translation and without Patristic commentaries. Has fighting all authority been good for us, or just made us full of pride? Did giving up making the sign of the cross really help anything or did it just give Satan a laugh that Christians had one less defense mechanism? Zwingli started that "in memory of" business and it's gotten so bad that my Baptist pastor said, "It's just a cracker." Orthodoxy thinks the Eucharist is a mystery and doesn't call it transubstantiation. It is the Holy Spirit that comes down and transforms it into the body and blood. If you took samples of it, it would still look like bread under the microscope, but it's of the Spirit and has spiritual grace and the ability for us to receive Christ Himself. Jesus did not say it was a parable like He did wherever He gave other parables. I read that 70% of Catholics don't believe it's the actual body and blood. Not sure of the Orthodox statistics, but it may also be pretty high among those born into it. There are a lot of people taking it unworthily, which means not believing it's the body and blood. The Spirit does give the bread and wine "life".
@@OrthodoxInquirer Hi. Thanks for writing. First, I am not defending the protestant religion. In fact, I first heard the gospel through a Catholic movie based on the life of Jesus and the Holy Spirit bore witness that the gospel is true. A short time later, I walked onto the lawn of a church one night and prayed my first prayer, "Is there Jesus? I would like to meet Him!" I extended my hands forward and I saw the Lord descend the last couple of feet to the earth, a white silhouette. I could see the outline of His robe. He took a step and took my hands. Instantly, I felt heaven all over and it felt like my heart was made out of gold. I walked away thinking, "That was heaven, but I am on earth. What is heaven doing on earth?" Jesus said, "Ask and you shall receive." I asked to meet the Lord and received eternal life. As Christ has said, "This is eternal life, that you know God and Jesus Christ Whom He has sent." Conversely, to those who do not know Him, He will say, "Depart from Me; I never knew you." Hence, salvation is a meeting with Christ and you meet Him just by asking. Of course, after I was saved, I obeyed the Lord in baptism. Yet, I was saved the moment that I was born again, born into the family of God. Have you not read, "Whoever asks will receive"? These are the words of Christ; how can you not know them? Hence, salvation is a personal encounter with the Lord and you meet Him simply by asking. Yet, if you are going to maintain that you cannot meet the Lord without being baptized, then you contradict the Lord Jesus Who said, "My Father will give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him (Luke 11.13)." That is, concerning your earthly father, he did not need to be baptized to be saved, but if he genuinely called upon the Name of the Lord - and if you genuinely call upon Him - and you are both genuinely filled with the Holy Spirit, then you both shall meet again in heaven. Yet, work out your salvation with fear and trembling. In fact, if you are not certain that you are saved, you probably are not! That is, are you seated in the heavenlies with Christ, does the Holy Spirit abides with you? You seem intelligent, so please consider carefully: if baptism is necessary for salvation, then it is not true that whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved. It is like an employer promising you $50 for mowing a lawn, then requiring you to wash windows. That is fraud! In the same way, if Paul says that by calling, you will be saved, then if you add other qualifications, you make Paul into a liar and a fraud. However, Mark 16.16 seems to be the most popular Bible verse that 'proves' the necessity of baptism for salvation. It reads that if you believe and are baptized, you will be saved. This is called a conditional statement. That is, without reference to any other Bible verses, there would be three possibilities: 1) that only baptism is necessary, 2) that only believing is necessary, or 3) that both are necessary. For example, if I were to say, "With my lucky rabbit's foot and a million dollars, I can see the world." That would be a conditional statement and would be true, but only the money is truly necessary for seeing the world. In the same way, baptism is extremely important, but not necessary for salvation. Jesus said, "Whoever believes in Me will have rivers of living water bubbling up unto eternal life." Conversely, if you do not know the Lord, if you do not have those rivers of living water, if the Holy Spirit does not abide with you, then neither are you saved. Do you know the Lord or do you simply have 'religious experiences'? As for my testimony, I met the Lord in the Spring of 1977 and since that time, I can honestly say that I have not had even one second of doubt that I know the Lord and am bound for heaven - not even for a second. That is because I have those rivers of life and the Holy Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God (Romans 8.16). If you do not know Christ - personally - then you are not saved. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
12:52 I'd say Mennonites could be on tier six (or 5.5). Say, my mother (MSN ICU nurse) has a (male) Amish shift nursing supervisor. I've also taken classes with classmates who are practicing Mennonites (they use pastel colors, unlike the Amish, like my mom's co-worker when he's off his work scrubs).
Charismatic Catholics hold to the teachings of the Catholic Church especially everything included in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Heavy into scripture and the gifts of the spirit including prophecy, tongues, healing, etc. Praise & Worship first & foremost. I’m a Catholic Convert - April 2, 1983, my Triple Crown - Baptized, Confirmation & Holy Communion. Scott Hahn, Steve Ray & Al Kresta also converts helped in my growth. Also, shout out to Derek Prince who was Non-Denominational preacher. Learned a lot from him also. In addition to many of the catholic prayers, my wife and I also include Derek’s Overcomer’s Prayer!
I am an Eastern Rite Catholic. I have a friend who was raised Roman Catholic,but now attends an Evangelical Free Church. I knew a lot of ex-Catholics attended his church, so I asked him what percentage of the congregation was formerly Catholic. Without missing a beat, he said twenty percent
@@dylanelias6812 headed to church, dylanelias! *Happy Sabbath!!!* i pray the LORD's day is a blessing for you and yours. tomorrow is a day too late! Jesus is in church today - see Luke 4:16, John 15:10.
Joshua, I was raised Roman Catholic but have long been more left of center in terms of beliefs. That said, I'd like to see you do a video on Old/Independent Catholicism. I'm discerning a call to ministry in an Old Catholic jurisdiction and many people are unfortunately completely unaware that they exist. In regards to whether Methodists or Presbyterians are closer to Catholicism, I wholeheartedly vote for the former. As you point out, Methodism is an offshoot of Anglicanism and in my experience, it tends to retain more elements of worship and denominational structure inherited from Anglicanism/Catholicism than do Presbyterians. Examples would be episcopal polity (though modified), a closer and more explicit view of the presence of Christ in Communion (at least as expressed in the Articles of Religion, although such a belief might not be held by as many Methodists as Anglicans or not emphasized as much), etc. Happy Easter!
I would definitely like to do Old Catholics. It's a common request. I am sure I will. Working on some big projects now but I hope to do it within 2022. Thanks for the inputs on the Methodist/Presbyterian question, good points!
@@ronaldbobeck1026 I know of the PNCC and definitely have more in common with it than the Roman Catholic Church, but many Old Catholics actively support/allow the ordination of women as priests, as do I. The PNCC doesn't, and that stance was one of the deciding factors in the Church's move away from the Union of Utrecht (an association of Old Catholic jurisdictions). Not all Old/Independent Catholic groups are part of it, but many are. I'd say the PNCC would be good for Joshua to mention as it is an independent Catholic tradition, and it has ties to Old Catholicism, but it's not as directly connected to Old Catholicism as it once was.
@@mr.anderson2241 in regards to the Bible alone, there are a few. In the first place, I don't believe scripture to be inerrant or infallible, at least not in the sense that many evangelical Protestants do for instance. Second, most of the reasoning those against the ordination of women give from a scriptural standpoint has to do with the admonitions of Paul that women shouldn't teach or have authority over men. Those beliefs are his opinions. See for example 1 Tim 2:12, wherein Paul says that he doesn't allow women to exercise authority over men; note that it's something HE doesn't allow. If he'd written that GOD doesn't allow it, the case against ordination of women would be a lot stronger. Third, the Old Testament provides ample evidence of women being in leadership roles, such as Deborah and Miriam.
As a Catholic I see Presbyterians closer to Methodists to Catholicism, mainly because of scholasticism, a closer view on predestination, infant baptism being more of a fundamental, and greater respect for the liturgy. There should be another tier below Presbyterians for the rest of tier 4. Another solution could be moving presbyterians up to tier 3 but slightly lower than the Lutheran
I like your incorporation of historical facts & traditional opinions/practises & believe that you have presented a fair & accurate assessment of how the various Christian Churches that do not identify directly as Catholic are in their relational aspects of beliefs, Cannon Law, & approach to worship. I remember feeling a sense of the Spirit of Vatican II when some Episcopal Churches in United States re-instituted the Stations of The Cross.
For the most part great video, but maybe if you are making it from the perspecitve of "proximity to Catholic" you should use the term deuterocanonical instead of the somwhat loaded protestant term apocrypha. Otherwise very objective as is always the case with your high quality content!
Which church is closest to the Catholic church? The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13? I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Yes, I find it a pretty good list. I'm Southern Baptist but I have my own views on some things. Rather, I'm silent, choosing not to argue. I don't believe other denominations "will burn in Hell." I just smile and say "we'll see." Jesus Christ was a lot more understanding than most of His followers.
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13? I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh Please calm down before making converts to your own church. I know lots of real Christians in all of those churches. Who is not aganst Me is for Me. Christ is the centre of the church.
@@aliasreco Hi. Thanks for writing. I am not trying to convert people to any church. I bring glory to Christ, Who died for the sins of the world. Catholics pervert the purity of the gospel, claiming that baptism is necessary for salvation. Yet, salvation is simply an encounter with Christ. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
This is really interesting. I was raised Catholic and have mainly encountered Protestantism (as well as Orthodoxy) at a distance, in books or online. I think once you get past Methodists I'd be pretty confused at how the service works, and anything past Anglicans I'm lost on their theology. I'd be interested to see this represented in more of a branching off model like you alluded to at the start!
The existence of Anglo-Catholics might justify ranking Anglicans on par with or even above the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches. I might also put Lutherans and Methodists on equal footing with each other. So I suppose Tiers 1-3 would comprise two tiers at most on my list, leaving room for the other groups to move up a tier. I'm fine with the Presbyterians and non-episcopal Wesleyans being on the following tier, but I'm not sure I would draw the same lines between some of the groups with congregational polity. I'm especially skeptical of the idea that churches of Christ are closer to Catholics than Baptists are. (The Disciples of Christ would be, but not the more fundamentalist branch of the Stone-Campbell movement.) The traditional coC view of grace feels rather Pelagian compared to Baptist views, and as a result, their understanding of baptism's efficacy in salvation is drastically different in concept than that of Catholic baptismal regeneration.
Idk if I’d put Lutherans with Methodists, Methodists seem to have a much more muted use of art/iconography and are generally more like the Baptists in worship. Also Lutherans have a calendar of saints, more elaborate vestments, and a corporeal Real Presence, whereas Methodists reject canonization of saints and have a more agnostic view of the Real Presence
Some "high church" Methodists worship like the typical Lutheran liturgy but no Methodist church interior looks like some Lutheran churches with crucifixes and statues. No Methodist Church would ever look like this kind of Lutheranism, for example: ruclips.net/video/IlnbkUyvHYY/видео.html&ab_channel=Laurentiistiftelsen
The Anglicans and Episcopalians I would say the high church ones are very close to Catholicism but the major differences even within the Anglicans and Episcopalians themselves would be ordination of gay priests, women priests a major difference and of course the issue of Papal primacy...the reformed or more conservative Anglicans and Episcopalians would adhere to the male priesthood but still be separated by Papal authority, also their version of Real Presence vs Transubstantiation is different some would believe the Catholic position that the bread and wine body soul divinity changes to Christ while others view it as a symbol even within.their denomination...some came back to Catholic Church under the Anglican Ordinarite while the others remain separated...so close but no cigar...we must pray for unity.
I am an Episcopalian, former Roman Catholic. There are a number of pre-Vatican II practices which some of us retain: the altar rail would be common, saying the Eucharist facing the same direction as the congregation can be found more frequently among us. I would say that the recent retranslation of the texts of the Mass was a very Protestant thing for the Roman Catholic Church in the US to do. It is closer to the Latin and closer to the translations in pre-Vatican II missals. The Protestantism was sacrificing poetry for adherence to a text. I guess "was made incarnate of the Virgin Mary" is closer to "incarnatus", but "born of the Virgin Mary" is better poetry. The Gloria has also changed: Catholics have leapfrogged us in approaching the Latin...I hope that your musicians are up to it.
It's a bit strange to use Pope Francis to represent traditional Catholicism, because many traditionalists would say he also is far from Catholic doctrine and practice. Many call him a heretic.
He is the Pope anyways. The one chosen by the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. And no matter what he did, there would always be people calling him a heretic.
He is the Pope. the visible sign of unity of God’s Church here on earth. The single most defining “Catholic doctrine” there is. Chosen by the Holy Spirit to be the successor of St. Peter. It doesn’t matter his personal faith or doctrinal rigor or peoples’ opinions on him. What matters is that he was chosen by the Holy Spirit. To believe otherwise is to be a Protestant. There have been much, much, much worse Popes. “Do not destroy him; for who can put forth his hand against the Lord's anointed, and be guiltless?” 1 Samuel 26:9
Like most Brits, I [was] a high-church Anglican. We tended to think of ourselves as 'English' Catholics rather than 'Roman' ones. At my school, we also had some R.C. kids who were not regarded as being 'the other side'.
2:40 In my youth my family had guested at both Lutheran and Episcopal (basically America's version of the Anglican church) masses when we were invited by friends. and there was literally no noticeable difference between their services and our own familiar Catholic mass. So, yeah, the answer to this one seemed pretty obvious to me. Other churches we'd been invited to include Baptist, 7th Day Adventist, and a Franciscan Fraternity (which is basically a Catholic church run by Franciscan monks).
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
As an Eastern Orthodox, I recently attended the Easter Vigil service at a Catholic cathedral with a friend. It felt strange sitting on a bench instead of standing. And the service felt more glorious, whereas Orthodox services felt more mystical. But I really enjoyed listening to the organ playing and choir singing. And I appreciated the liturgy. It felt familiar to me. All in all, it was an interesting experience
@@cakataarjack3966 There are Western Rite Liturgies in Antiochian and Rocor Jurisdictions.
my ortho brothers, you and your patriarchs are consistently in my prayers, much love for you and your traditions!
I feel it in reverse as a Roman, I enjoy Catholic Mysticism and I wish it was emphases more often like it is in the east.
Does your priest know this?
@@darthkillhoon sadly catholic mysticism was always something of a niche in the roman church, an example is the condemnation of Eckhart... it's like the sufis in islam, really something of a chosen few... It is also true that it requires a lot of spiritual dedication, I think that the East knew how to handle it better but there is nothing to envy them, Western mystics continue to have a valid voice, actually timeless, and a very powerful wisdom that leads to union with God
The Pope's expressions as you moved further away were hilarious
LOL I just watched again the video to see what you were meaning! 😂
Now I have to watch it again!
@@Leptospirosi me too /o/
Well I guess I’ll have to watch again lol
I didn't notice until Francis' shocked, Macaulay Culkin face towards the end :D
As Catholic, I view the Orthodox Churches as closest to home as I can get. Good list and reasoning. Your channel is very fun!
I have been to Greek Orthodox and Russian. I do not find them to be at all close to Roman Catholic, and most certainly not in their understanding of the Trinity nor in their worship. To me the comment above from
nikitosha! nailed it. I find the Orthodox church to be mystical. In fact very mystical and the Roman Catholic and Protestants are more glorious in their worship and nikitosha stated. Orthodox have much more ritual!!
One major difference between Orthodox and Roman Catholic clergy is that Orthodox clergy are allowed to marry, whereas Roman Catholic clergy cannot. Quite a significant difference, if you ask me. The exceptions in Roman Catholicism are that a widower can become a priest after his wife dies, but cannot remarry once he is ordained, and deacons can be married.
Anything outside of the modern protestant ted talks are good with me. Love to see any kind of Catholic-Orthodox solidarity in a world lacking in sacraments.
@@coreymatlak3989 as a Catholic(obligatory) I appreciate those Protestant Ted talk and rock and roll services for what they are. I get our way of mass isn’t for everyone and their form of worship certainly isn’t for me but they seem to still work in bringing people to the truth. Though I am deeply saddened my fellow Christians missing out on the Eucharist, I still appreciate our differences.
Eastern Orthodox is pretty much the 2nd oldest one before Catholic Church.
In the late 1980s I attended a church shared by Catholic and Anglican congregations. About once a month the Catholic and Anglican priests would say Mass side-by-side, each side would go to communion with their priest, and after Mass everyone would have coffee and donuts together. It really demonstrated how similar the two denominations really are, as the Mass was almost identical.
No way!! I love ecumenism and had no idea that something like this could happen
@@Life-er6mq I have no idea if it is still going. This was in Virginia, and I moved away in 1989. But it was wonderful.
why doesn`t trinity appears in bible.,,
@@lufhopespeacefully2037the word trinity doesnt appear in bible but the idea of trinity does
@@RandomPerson2609 ,,, as far as i know trinity is an old worshipping for some an egyptians who have worshipped ezice,authorice&hurce ,later on the church has abducted the notion&also The concept of a trinity predates the Bible. The concept of a trinity predates the Bible. The much older Hindu Vedas had a holy trinity.Called the trimurti, it was Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer, three individual deities that are also a single deity
As Roman Catholic I appreciate your unbiased descriptions and I learn more every time I watch your videos.
💯
Once I was talking to a devout Catholic. He said that a Catholic priest said to him that the Roman Catholic Church has eight sacraments. He asked the priest what the eighth sacrament was. The priest said "Bingo". The Anglican Church of Canada and The United Church of Canada have publicly stated that by 2040 they will cease to exist. A United Church closes down every week in Canada. The Catholic Church will still by around because a Catholic believes that by attending Mass he/she is experiencing something that you cannot get anywhere else. Liberal Protestant churches cannot offer anything unique. Also Filipino immigrants coming to Canada have kept a lot of Catholic churches alive.
@Ab99 For two hundred years Quebec was one of the most Catholic places in the world. Beginning in the 1960's Quebecois started leaving the Catholic church in droves. Today it is one of the most secular places in the world. People in Latin America, beginning in the 1960's, started leaving the Catholic Church. Unlike Quebec, many became evangelical Protestants. The pastor of the church that I attend, Jozef Jasinski, is from Poland. He was a Roman Catholic but got born again in Jesus. As a Catholic he smoked, drank, took drugs, and slept around. When he met Jesus he left the Catholic Church and became a Pentecostal pastor. In the downtown area of Edmonton there are various evangelical missions that feed the poor and homeless. Groups such as The Hope Mission, The Mustard Seed Church, The Salvation Army, The House of Refuge, and The Mission Hall. To be fair The Marion Centre also gives clothes and soup and sandwiches to the poor. Evangelical Protestants in Edmonton are doing more to feed homeless and poor Catholics, and others, than the Catholic Church is.
@Ab99 Despite my Anglo-Saxon name I am only half-white. I was born in Japan to a Japanese mother. I have relatives in Japan that are very dear to me. I am definitely not a white supremacist . At the Mission Hall there is a Native man, Glenn Davis, who preaches the gospel every Tuesday night. Until 1983 he was a Roman Catholic. He was a drunk and a drug addict living on the streets in Prince George, British Columbia. He heard the gospel, gave his life to Christ, and got delivered from booze and drugs. Since then he has been preaching the gospel of Christ. At the Mission there is a Native lady, Marlene. In 1963 she was a girl at a Catholic residential school in Kamloops. She was raped by a Catholic priest. She spent many years as a drunk and a drug addict. She gave her life to Christ and got delivered from sin. The gospel of Christ is for anyone; regardless of their ethnic background.
@Ab99 Protestant countries such as the USA and Britain had more religious liberty than Catholic countries such as Spain and France. Also Catholic countries gave us fascist dictators such as Marcos, Samosa, Pinochet, Mabuto, Mussolini, and Batista. Democracy came from Protestant countries. At the Mission we deal with people whose lives have destroyed by sin. One Monday night a man was preaching Jesus and a Native man ,about 60 blurted out ``My mother was raped by a priest ``We tell them that Christ died for their sins and they can be born again in Jesus. When you look at Quebec since the 1960`s it is obvious that many people are leaving the Catholic church.
I had to laugh at the Pope’s expression as you moved further and further away.😂
LOL--that was my biggest reason for giving this a like!
It was a nice hidden gem
I did not notice until you pointed it out. Very droll.
I missed it too. Hilarious. Thanks for commenting.
@@HasanUnknown - the New Testament shares one thing in common with any other book. It can succumb to thieves ripping verses from it, and outside of the context in which they were given, be twisted by those who do not have the light of the Holy Spirit to support almost any kind of heresy. Rather then come here Hasan and attempt to use our Holy Scriptures as a weapon against us, prove yourself to be a man who truly seeks to be taught by God. Read the entire New Testament for yourself. Use no outside source to interpret it. After you have finished, read it again. Then, in a year, come back to us and tell us who you think Jesus Christ is.
I love how the Pope gets progressively more angry / horrified / bewildered as you go down the list of denominations.
Because the pope is an idiot
What does that mean? Which Protestant denomination is "The Right one?"
@@PokerMonkey the right ones are the farthest away from the abomination that is Roman Catholicism
Yeah, that was fun!
@@PokerMonkey If you ask the Pope... None
As a Baptist pastor, I really, really appreciate the way in which you do these videos. God bless!
Me too. It's refreshing and informative.
sincere question John - why do you believe your church, like the catholic church - ignores Exodus 20:8-11 ?
i was in a baptist church - this topic helped me to convert out of it.
@@tony1685 I'm not as knowleadgable on this topic as I'm certain he is, but I'd like to point you to Romans 14, in which Paul writes how for one man one day is more holy than the other, and how we ought to accept them for it is their belief/conviction
@@tony1685 Jesus did good on the Sabbath (see John 5:1-17) but the main reason is that we already don't do work on that day. We do set it apart (make it holy) for worship though.
@@jonathanvaladez5916 Paul actually kept Sabbath - Acts 17:2 and told all to keep God's Ten Commandments - 1 Cor 7:19
so are you saying Paul is contradicting God's Word in Exodus 20:8-11 ??
or perhaps is this speaking of another topic?
if you'd like further proof, just let me know, Sir - it's obviously the 2nd.
Paul isn't apostate, teaching sin.
I admire how careful you are to leave your personal biases out of these videos. One small thing is perhaps when mentioning the “Apocrypha” in a Catholic or Orthodox context, that you could mention that they call those books “deuterocanonical” as they are distinct from other apocryphal works like the Gospel of Thomas.
I would add .. the odd notion that 'Anglicanism' (the State Church of England) is - per se - closer to Catholicism than to State Lutheranism; it isn't. The confusion rests on the slow adoption of Roman ritualism (Anglo-Catholicism/ High Church-ism/ Old Catholicism) in the early twentieth century; this was and is still anathema to the Anglican spirit. And, though this may not be popular, it is further disorientated by the introduction and implementation of the New Order of Mass, CE 1969, which is currently largely Protestantised out of all Catholic recognition (still a common abuse, btw, despite the correctives issued under St John Paul II).
Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek.
God bless. ;o)
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)."
Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13?
I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh Clearly, Jesus Christ, Himself, in Person, at One with His Bride .. i.e. the Church (defined as one, holy, catholic and apostolic) .. is the standard, not least in sound words. The Church's Holy Bible is a key and central witness to this Faith, but the Bible belongs to the Church not vise versa. Baptism into Christ's Name is indeed necessary, that is how we are saved, for there is salvation in no other name; thus Rom 10 : 13, et al, affirms this; Baptism is, after all, what God does for us, as He did with Noah, whereas calling upon Christ's Name is our response to that grace, not a replacement for it, it is what we offer in prayer to the Lord God, Who shall indeed save us.
God bless. ;o)
Nowhere in Romans 10:13 do I see anything resembling the interpretation: “Baptism does not save you,” therefore there is no contradiction. What you have is a situation where both are true. The prior verse talking about no distinction between Jew nor Greek helps us understand that verse 13 means Jesus is not exclusive to one particular people but to all who call upon him. This can actually be supportive of baptism when we understand that it fulfills the role of circumcision, such that initiation into the body of Christ is no longer by the distinctly Israelite practice of cutting the foreskin, but by washing with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and are circumcised in the heart, which, practically speaking, is much more accessible to any race (and gender).
@@killianmiller6107 Yes, that is the point K M. How can man call upon the Lord God without the grace to do so? For if they have not first believed on the Lord, Jesus Christ, they will not call upon Him (whether with the heart, or the lips alone). And .. such saving belief comes by hearing the Gospel (and accepting what it offers and commands); the Lord is Lord of all, the same Lord, over Cain and Abel, Abraham and Melchizedek, Herod and the Magi, Jew and Gentile, Athens and Jerusalem (not all accept what they have received, by way of divine blessing - though some do, many do not .. in fact not a few go farther, they reject even what they can know, as it witnesses all about them).
What then was the Lord's missionary command to His Apostles and disciples before ascending to the heavenly Throne of Glory at His Father's side?
Your presentation was not only thorough but also respectful of ALL
the faiths. Excellent
job!
... #AsAlways ...thank you Professor Joshua !!!
I am Lutheran, so this is my perspective. I say you absolutely nailed it. I agree with your placement and rationale for every selection. Well done!
Are you German?
I am an American Coptic orthodox Christian from a Protestant upbringing. I agree you did nail it. God bless you!
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)."
Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13?
I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh You don't even know what you saying kid
Educate yourself more then comment something
@@KarmaKraftttt Hi. Typically, in a discussion, a person will have a main idea with support. What did I say that seemed 'uneducated' to you? Thanks! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
May I just say how much I love your "emoting pope" reactions to each denomination?
I like the “emoting pope” too! The look on Pope Francis’ face on some of these denominations is hilarious! Very interesting and informative video, too!😊
Seventh-day Adventist, and you nailed Adventism. It's often overlooked in videos comparing denominations. You not only included it in your tiers, but you also accurately described it. Thanks!
I know a Seventh-Day Adventist woman. She's an arch-conservative vegetarian that won't get the covid vaccine. I wonder if that's common. 😆
@@brianw.5230 Pretty common, yeah. I got the vaccine. My job required it, but I was about 50/50 on it anyway. So I didn't mind too much.
i had to become Adventist, after 35 yrs of being catholic, and various other denominational investigations.
it's the only church which believes in all Ten Commands - that alone is more than sufficient for anyone with a bit of Bible literacy and integrity.
*Happy Sabbath!!!*
this evening is when Christ and His followers recognize the Lords day, i pray It's a blessing for you and yours, Jerry.
@@tony1685 Adventists don't believe in Hell, though. Christ taught of it dozens of times.
@@brianw.5230 incorrect, Brian - we don't believe in the popular theory of what hell actually is.
do you believe John 3:16?
This is a video topic I never would have thought to ask for, but it's incredibly interesting!
Really interesting
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)."
Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13?
I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh who you talking to?
@@dylangrubbs5969 Who am I talking to? I have been instructed by Christ to share the gospel with anyone who will listen - you, if you are interested. Thanks!
In this video, it is as though the Catholic church was the standard of truth. Yet, I am of the opinion that Catholics distort the gospel and are therefore in serious danger of running into God's righteous anger. For example, Catholics claim that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Christ said, "My Father will give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." These are contradictory teachings. Which one is true?
Most importantly, what do you think about eternity? Do you believe in heaven and hell? If so, how does a person get to paradise? Thanks for your post. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Happy easter, brothers and sisters
As someone who is searching for a denomination to belong to after renewing his relationship with Christ, this channel is so incredibly helpful. I've been visiting many churches and researching and praying. While I feel drawn to the Catholic Church Im very fond of other denominations. I will see where He wants me to be but I'm very grateful for this video 🙏
I have been searching as well , i would seriously consider Pentecostal, there basically weslyan minus Christian perfection and they believe in divine healing
Visit an Eastern Orthodox Church.
Begin with what you feel drawn to, see in person if it still "calls" you. In general, Catholic Churches don't make it easy peasy to convert and provide a lot of info , also it takes a year or more. So you will have all the time to see if this is your path while confronting with others. Take your time , take your steps and trust God, He will give you guidance.☺️
A lot of Protestants end up Orthodox, I feel.
Because they have the confort of Tradition and the High Church.. but without the Pope.. which is (still) a sticking point for Protestants.
The drawback however is that Orthodoxy is more "oriental", while Catholicism is part of the collective West's history.
*Truth invites investigation!* - catholicism runs from It ~ aways remember that, friend!
if you love Jesus Christ - see John 14:15
then you'd go to a church which knows there are 10 Commandments and keeps all Ten - Sabbath included.
or would we be wise to forget the Command which begins with _'Remember'_ ?
this is the Command with the seal of God in It.
It's the longest of all Ten Commands too!
always ask questions, friend!
former (35 yr) catholic, now Christian.
GBY and yours!
I cannot tell you how much your videos have helped me, it would have took years of study at a library to learn what I have learned from your videos in the past few months.
Your videos are informative, factual, and best of all completely impartial, I highly recommend them to anyone wanting to make an informed decision on what denomination they should support.
Once again thank you and God bless you!
This is how the internet could be used
To spread and build on information
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)."
Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13?
I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Jesus did NOT give the authority to “bind on earth” to Paul-he gave it to Peter, the first Pope. Stop interpreting the Bible to suit your own beliefs. The Catholic Church has 2,000 years of history and is the ONLY Apostolic Church. Whatever make-believe Church you belong to was only invented recently and is only using man-made interpretations of the Bible to create its theology. People like you are the reason we have 40 thousand (+) Christian denominations: people who read one passage in ENGLISH and not in the original Greek, which St Paul wrote in. If you want to belong to some man-made Christian denomination, go ahead, but stop being so arrogant and putting your own spin on the Bible
@@BrowderFan "if you want to belong to some man-made Christian denomination, go ahead but stop being so arrogant and putting your own spin on the Bible"
I'm confused, this statement is actually a pretty accurate description of the Catholic Church, so are you for Catholicism or against it?
Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;iii
Happy Easter, good and interesting video.
As a LCMS Lutheran, I do agree that we would probably right at the 3rd tier.
Great Video. As a Catholic, I really enjoyed it and I think you were pretty much on the mark. One very small group you understandably left out were the Moravians. A fascinating denomination that claims to have apostolic tradition and date back to John Hus. So, like Catholics in one sense. Have you done a video on them? I am interested because my family came from Czechoslovakia where they originated but I also worked with an African American woman who was a member. They seemed to have reached out very early to all races. In fact, if I remember correctly, there was a terrible massacre of Native American Moravians by American revolutionaries.
Moravian has missionaries to the Cherokee nation when it was still all in the east. The Cherokee constitution enshrined Christianity as the state religion.
Tom, please please read this.
Do you want the truth? Do you want the truth that the Holy Ghost might be convicting you about?
If you have the guts think and pray about these things. God will not refuse a humble spirit.
You can quote church fathers all day and it won't mean a thing, you cannot argue the facts below.
Roman Catholics and Orthodox believe the bible......until you show them James 1:1 and compare James 2 with Revelation 14:9-12 which proves that James 2 DOES teach faith and work, but NOT for the body of Christ. This is because in the tribulation you must avoid the mark of the beast to be saved.
But Paul very clearly teaches works are separated from salvation atleast for the church.
Romans 4
4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Extremely clear, but I realize you Catholics have heard James 2 so much you don't even get this passage.
And as far as other question you Catholics have to answer, there's plenty:
ruclips.net/video/vgwC9uYdabo/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/oz990ugwmlA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/4A0w0DoYeew/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/rM0z0DL3lhc/видео.html
I was baptized in the Moravian church even though I didn’t know much about it or Christianity in general. (Sadly I lied in order to get married in the church)
I didn’t let Jesus into my heart until much later, which oddly enough happened when I poured my heart out to the Jesus statue outside of my local parish. I am now Catholic. And when researching everything I started to learn more about the Moravian faith. From what I remember of the Moravian services it wasn’t much like the Catholic Church (seemed like Methodist services I’ve attended) but they were very lovely people with a very interesting history.
@@JoeHinesFla wow
Great to see you have turned to Jesus and you hopefully will continue to stay in him by his grace
I agree. I live in the southeast and before I moved here, I’d never heard of it. I’ve been learning about it so my knowledge is very limited. I find it fascinating.
As an Episcopalian/ Anglican, I really appreciate this video and completely agree with our placement on the ladder. For myself, one of the things that drew me to Anglicanism was our closeness to both Catholicism and protestantism. As many have said, thank you for a wonderful video.
I’m Episcopal too! God be with you! :D
Viva la Via Media! 😀
Whats the origin of the episcopal/anglican church?
Closeness to both get off the fence they are as chalk and cheese
@@Chadlifter Henry VIII wanting a divorce from Catherine of Aragon but the pope saying no, causing Henry to turn away from Rome and embrace the Reformation.
Man, this is a video I've wanted to see for forever but never thought it would be made! Awesome.
I’m Jewish and I find this all so fascinating. Growing up, I only knew Christians and Jews. It seems the more I learn, the less I know. My wife was Presbyterian and she made sure to let me know there were major differences.
@Hold Fast Actually it is pretty straight forward- basically how liberally or conservatively do you interpret the Tanakh (or your Old Testament). Believe it or not, that’s basically about it.
@@chosenoneinakilt9495 Oh, they're big. I'm not Jewish myself, but I spent some time in Israel and there was no mistaking some of the groups for the others. Hasidim aren't like Samaritans who aren't like the African Jews. A lot of variety.
The one that gets overlooked more is Islam. There are some pretty major factions yet it's presented as a united front by some people.
@Hold Fast yes
@@chosenoneinakilt9495 You should look up the Beta Israel community. They are Ethiopian Jews that have a expanded biblical canon, they reject the Talmud and even have a monastic tradition! They also observe holy days other Jews don't and accept the book of Enoch.
I’m a Jew who has recently converted to Christianity. If you truly want to know God, it is the only logical path forward. Real Judaism doesn’t even exist anymore because the Temple has been destroyed and there are no more priests to administer sacrifices. I highly encourage you to read of the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle to the Romans, the former shows that Jesus is the Messiah and the latter explains why we all need Him. Everything in the Old Testament foreshadows Jesus
I came across this on my feed and I thank you for an exceptionally well thought-out and executed video. I am Episcopalian and over the years I have noticed that many new members to the Episcopal (or Anglican) church are Roman Catholics who are comfortable with our worship style which is very similar to what they used to practice at mass...particularly when it comes to things such as kneeling during the service, genuflection and sanctification by crossing oneself. Some visitors to the Episcopal Church are confused when they hear us say, during the Nicene Creed, "...I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church..." They often mistake the lower case 'catholic' with the Roman Catholic Church. You have done an excellent job, my friend. You remind me of the college professors I had years ago in whose classes I would listen intently for hours on end with no lapse in my level of attention to what they were saying.
Thank you for the compliments! I have lots more videos like this one, hope you'll take a look around.
Even here in the Philippines. many Roman catholic come to Anglican Church
I found this very interesting. You are very knowledgeable.
I am currently a member of the United Methodist Church.
With the division in the UMC becoming so strong that very little ministry is actually being done, and many UMC churches and Bishops are not holding to the current Book of Discipline, I am researching other denominations doctrines. Praying for discernment as to where I feel God is leading me.
I'm in the exact same boat as you. I was raised a Methodist in the UMC, and although they don't view baptism and communion as necessary for salvation, they would still schedule mass baptisms for people who would volunteer and had communion on Easter and Christmas.
As far as I know now, neither of those things aren't being offered or even practiced in the UMC churches near me. Once they allowed a literal lesbain pastor to preach about "LGBT issues" I literally walked out mid service and never went back. Finding a new church is tough.
Ever looked into joining the newly formed more conservative Global Methodist church?
I am in the same boat. Raised UMC but the liberalism I just can't accept.
*Happy Sabbath!!!* - i pray church today, the LORD's day, is a blessing for all who follow God's Truth!
Prayers ascending for you in particular. Although we've never attended any Methodist church, we appreciate your struggle to find a new local church. Blessings will follow as God leads you to a new local body.
I was Lutheran growing up, but left it for the Pentecostals in my early twenties, because of liberal theology. After 25 years I saw that Pentecostals, although serious in their convictions (which I liked), had a pretty shallow theological backing and continuity through history. So I became Catholic. But the journey still felt like a progression, although I agree with the list you’ve made.
Were you ELCA or LCMS?
@@jonahhuckel4838 neither - i live in Norway
Yay! Welcome home! So happy you found your way to the Catholic Church! Peace and joy in the love of Christ our Lord be with you.
Out of the frying pan into the fire. I went (lived or survived is more like it) through twelve God forsaken years of Catholic school. They are an abomination of hell. None of their traditions are in the Bible. Most contradict it.
If you believe in the authority of scripture, you can't be Catholic. Catholicism depends upon the authority of fallible church leaders as opposed to the inspired word of God.
I would imagine that prior to the influence of the Pietist movement, the Scandinavian Lutheran churches that never formally accepted the Formula of Concord may have looked a degree more similar to Roman Catholicism than the rest of traditional Lutherans at the time. They claimed apostolic succession, maintained strict episcopal polity, and in many ways probably looked a lot like High Anglicans today.
The Church of Sweden and Finland still seems to be very liturgical, but Pietism seems to have had a lot of influence in Norway and Denmark
DeFyYing and Ethiopia. The main Ethiopian Lutheran denomination is Pietist too (second largest Lutheran denomination in the world after the Church of Sweden which have been excommunicated), except they’re low church compared to other Lutherans but are high church compared with other Ethiopian-Eritrean Evangelicals, they also share a a seminary, and are partial/full communion with Baptists, Pentecostals, and Mennonites, they’re also non-Episcopal (don’t have bishops), and are Evangelical in the Born-again sense.
The obvious answer is Sedevacantism. The Sedevacantist churches try to be ultra-Catholic.
Furthest away would be Quakers.
@@thursoberwick1948 Tacitly affirming the RC claim that their camp has no denominational divisions by counting Sedevacs and other alt-Catholic groups as seperate, while everyone else on this list is grouped as a denominational family, wouldn't exactly be keeping up with the strived for neutral point of view.
Sedevacantists, Old Catholic, SSPX, conclavists, etc are all Tier 0, Catholic.
@@RepublicofE Yes, I know where you'e coming from... however, I have found evidence that they have diverged, not only because the Vatican has changed its own policy since the splits, but because some of them like the Palmarians, and whatever Mel Gibson's outfit's called, have developed their own idiosyncrasies. I'm also aware of a group (don't know the name), which takes Marian doctrine way further than the Vatican and treats her as co-redemptorix, so if anything, that would be -1, i.e. diverging from the Vatican but out in the opposite direction... since the Vatican would find more common ground with some High Anglicans and Lutherans over that issue.
Well done. Appreciate your evident research, study, & fairness. Thanks.
My mother was raised Quaker and my father was raised Swedenborgian, and naturally I expected them both to be very far down the list. I was curious which you were going to put further out, but given that you were discussing Quakerism at large and not liberal Quakerism, my home branch, specifically (which you said would have been further out) I definitely understand the decision you made. Cool to see them both mentioned though (even if Swedenborgian wasn't put on the actual chart), since this was the first video of yours that I've seen!
What is Swedenborgian?
Quakers came from the "Anabaptists" who were never ever part of Catholicism. They are not protestants. But over the last 600 years they had quite a bit of protestant leaven sneak in.
See off the left eye by swedenborg in pa.
@@annaraeellison3417some may say it is what you get when you are bored of Sweden
Well done. You pack a lot of good information in a short time. It is your style and a good one, too.
Which church is closest to the Catholic church? The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)."
Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13?
I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh You will get more viewers if you move your response to "add a comment" rather than "reply" to my post. You make some good points, but they have nothing really to do with what I wrote, so your reply to me does not make much sense.
@@ThomasGMcElwain Hi. Thanks for writing. In your original post, you praised the speaker for the information provided. My comment was in response to the video's point of view. That is, it is irrelevant if a protestant denomination is closest to the Catholic church since Catholics preach a false gospel, leading millions to hell. Is that not germain to the topic of the video and your comment? That said, may I ask, what do you believe a person must do to enter heaven? Thanks! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh If you did not like the man's theology, address him about it and not me. I thanked him for factual information, even though I might disagree with his theology. That should not merit an attack from anyone, since I did not take a position on his theology or anyone else's. I asked you to address him with your concerns, assuming that you had pressed the wrong button. Obviously, you simply want to troll people. Not appropriate.
What an amazingly well thought out and brilliantly presented piece. It is so sad however that there is such division in the body of Christ.
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)."
Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13?
I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh
I love it when someone picks their favorite verse and demands that it is the pinnacle of the bible, rejecting all verses which show their error. The whole of the bible is true and many verses must be taken in some context for that to be so. For example Jesus said that those who love the least of his brethren will be saved (Matt 25:31-46). No one word about calling on him. Was Jesus right or was Paul? Until you can show that your theology points to them both being right in some sense, your theology is false.
@@kenshiloh I agree entirely that the Catholic Church is not the standard, but the Bible. I _disagree_ that teaching baptism as necessary for salvation isn't Biblical, or even that it's contradictory. We are to "believe and be baptized," and many Christians consider that to be a single command that is _not_ a "work." There's an excellent (and intellectually rich) debate on baptism uploaded here on RUclips. It's a televised debate from roughly the '70s between members of the church of Christ and Baptists, which even gets into the original Greek in order to explain the perspective.
[ETA: A more streamlined way to describe it is that there are many Christians who believe baptism is necessary, not because they believe in "faith +," but because they believe it is "faith properly defined."]
@@jacksyoutubechannel4045 Is baptism necessary to be saved? Then was Paul lying when he wrote, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)"? Moreover, in Mark 16.16 it is written that if we believe and are baptized then we shall be saved. However, logically, only one of the two conditions are necessary. For example, I could say that with a million dollars and a rabbit's foot, you can travel the world. This statement is true, but a rabbit's foot is not necessary. Baptism is commanded by the Lord, but not necessary for salvation.
The bottom line is, do you know the Lord? If you do not have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you, then you do not believe in Christ (This is the contrapositive to John 7.38). Christ died on a Cross so that, just by asking, we may know Him. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh Once again it's always about interpretation in the context of the whole. When he wrote, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)" Does that mean Satan worshippers who curses the Name of the Lord is also saved or was he a liar?
If it even occurred to me to try to research this tópico, I am sure I would have been so intimidated that I would never have finished. You did SO much research!
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)."
Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13?
I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Bro you are the boss of explaining church denomination stuff. Good job🙏🏾💯
I agree with your list. You did a great job with your analysis. (I’m a Catholic convert since college in 1966. )
Wow
That's a long time 😂
You've seen a lot and I'd really love to hear your stories too
still haven't read/believed the Bible, huh Carole.
will keep you in prayer - as catholicism isn't Christianity.
@@tony1685 lol and Protestantism is?
It's that why the most radical churches are protestant churches?
Lol 🤣
If there's something I will say it's that you're either ignorant of catholic teaching or unfamiliar with the Bible to be saying this
@@tony1685 Whatever you say, Proto.
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)."
Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13?
I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
I am highly appreciative of your work put into the videos.
Thank you, Frank!
@@ReadyToHarvest Your welcome. On another issue, if you would like. I would be glad to work with you on a video or series of them about Messianic Jews, Hebrew Roots, and Sacredname groups. If you're so inclined.
@@frankmckinley1254
I would LOVE that and will pray that it works out!
Shalom & Maranatha!
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)."
Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13?
I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshilohYour problem is that Christianity doesn’t teach the Bible. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the only one that does.
I worked at a small Franciscan university for nine years. One day I asked one of the Franciscan priests what the main difference between Catholics and Orthodox was, and he said--without a hint of irony--"Well, the Catholics think they're right, and the Orthodox KNOW they're right."
well, the main difference between Catholics and Orthodox is that the orthodox are too self-centered to recognize that the papacy is in Rome and not in their city. probably a joke
@@Cr7Micto No, to be fair, they have the notion of "one among equals," which is one of the objections to having the papacy centered in Rome.
Just because someone says they're right (saying they know they're right) doesn't mean they're right.
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)."
Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13?
I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh Sola sciptura is not a biblical doctrine and also alien to the way of early church most of whom couldn't read.
And see what Peter said to those who had perceived their need of slavation: When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
What I will do with Romans 10.13 is this: I shall call on the name of the Lord, swirtch off this machine and go to bed.
I love how your videos cause me to look deeper into my own faith for the “why” behind my own practices!!!! ❤
He is Risen!!! Happy Easter
The Methodist doctrine of Christian perfection (entire sanctification) is analogous to the Orthodox doctrine of theosis. Catholicism affirms this too. I'm not sure why that connection wasn't seen.
No, it's not.
@@mitchellsmith4690 It looks like you haven't read enough Christian theology then. Fiat lux!
@@someoneveryclever Actually, no...it means you understand the concept of theosis poorly.
I grew up Southern Baptist, but became Catholic who goes to an Ordinary Form of the Mass (Novus Ordo) that is mostly English but occasionally has Spanish or Latin. I have been to an Extraordinary Form Mass (Traditional Latin) before, and I’ve been to a German Mass. There are parishes that do the Mass in Spanish near me, but I’ve never went so far. There is an Eastern Catholic parish that have parts of their Divine Liturgy (which counts as Sunday Mass attendance for Westerners as Eastern Catholics are fully Catholic) in English, parts in Arabic and parts in Aramaic, but I have yet to go there.
You should go check out the Eastern Catholic service for sure. The Christian East remains a mystery to the majority of Westerners, and that's a shame, for it has much to offer the world. (I'm a born/bred Lutheran turned EO.)
why did you become catholic?
Your really into “Religions”. Why don’t you stop following religions, and follow Christ?
@@richardurban2269"Institutes of the Christian RELIGION" book by John Calvin
@@raphaelsrgr
Why read a book when God revealed to me that religions are all playgrounds for Satan?
Stay away from religions. Just follow Christ. You don’t need man made rules. People are unable to follow Gods rules, so why do they want to try to follow man’s rules?
So glad to have found this channel, can’t wait to watch more and learn.
grew up as an anglo-catholic, there's definitely always been some tension within the anglican church between those who look more towards the catholic church and those who look more towards methodists and other more evangelical groups
I think many Episcopalians don't even consider themselves members of a protestant church.
@@willcwhite definitely. personally i never saw myself as protestant, more of a halfway between the two
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)."
Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13?
I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@comady25 there is no halfway.
One is either catholic or Christian.
Yeah. It's sort of difficult to balance, because while I was raised in a relatively high church anglican environment, I am in theory very much against the catholic influence.
Edited for spelling.
I thought your list was pretty good. I would have liked to see where you would have placed the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and their ecumenical partner United Church of Christ. I'm Roman Catholic and worked for about a decade for the CC(DoC). I think objectively they would be about a 5, but I found them to be surprisingly strongly attracted to Catholic worship. Also, the Polish National Catholic Church and the Union of Scranton Old Catholics might be right up there with the Eastern Orthodox, ahead of the Oriental Orthodox. The Union of Utrecht Old Catholics are a 3 and dropping.
Interestingly, the Catholic Church (referring to the 20+ "sui juris" Churches all in Communion with the bishop of Rome) has experienced great progress toward real Eucharistic Communion (de facto if not formal corporate unity) with the Oriental Orthodox Churches.
Internal division and the Russian invasion of Ukraine has scrambled the polity of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, with the Moscow Patriarchate seeking to usurp the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople as "first among equals" among the EOCs. The Vatican's recent cancellation of a meeting between the Pope and the MP is a strong indication that interaction with the Russian Orthodox Church has become radioactive, due to the ROC's outright support of the war and endorsement of a heretical "Great Russia" theology, repudiated by the other Orthodox Churches closely aligned with the Ecumenical Patriarch. Although the EP and the Vatican have very warm ties, the EP, who studied at the Pontifical Oriental Institute, will leave it at that for now. It may be a half-century before the EOCs resolve their divisions.
A final comment: please remember that the Catholic Church is more than just the Roman Church. There are additional Western Rites, and 20+ "sui juris" Eastern Catholic Churches. Many of these ECCs identify as "Orthodox Christian in communion with the Church of Rome" (an identification criticized, not surprisingly, by the EOCs).
This was excellent. This was some scholarly work you did my man!
I'm a Methodist and I been to a Presbytarian church and I can say we are pretty similar. I can say for my church we tend to hold on to tradition, we do have bishops and have an episcopal structure, the Eucharist is very important and communion is held the first Sunday of every month, we do infant baptism, and my church also tends to be more liturgical as our tradition is based on the Anglican heritage. Also where I live Methodists are heavily involved in charity and good works. However, UMC churches tend to vary church by church. Some are more "liberal", some are more "moderate", and some are "conservative".
A lay person can go to a Methodist or Presbyterian Church and hardly notice the difference. Especially if they are English and Scottish extraction.....
@@kenwalker687 well yes and no. So as being confirmed United Presbyerian now PCUSA and in that denomination for years, I would agree with you on that in look and appearance. But in belief a mainline Presbyterian would be more comfortable say in regards to belief with an ELCA Church or UCC or another Reformed. Also a Reformed Episcopal or Anglican. Because we all have the same roots. Whereas the Methodist went as an offshoot of the Anglican holding to Holiness beliefs and Wesleyan tradition, which is more similar to Holiness and Nazarene. But on appearance yes I would agree. THE UMC Churches in the USA are very confusing, and much different than other Methodist churches.
Your works cannot save you.
You are always so informative! Your videos are top notch! And this pictures of Francis are hilarious. Signed: A Catholic
Your videos are super informative, and respectful of all denominations. Kudos
I've been Reformed/Presbyterian all my life. I was baptized into The Reformed Church In America. The RCA is the daughter of the Reformed church in the Netherlands which my first ancestors belonged to and which came to America in 1628. Other early ancestors came to America from the Netherlands and were French Huguenots. The French church failed because there weren't enough French to sustain it and most French had married Dutch people and joined their churches I left it at 13 when my family left New York City for Florida. There upon I entered a desert period without church involvement. As an adult I felt a stirring to return to corporate worship. Unlike many people I studied all the denominations. I ended up where I'd started, The Reformed Church. I joined a church that was part of the PCUSA. I was there a few years until the Liberalism in matters ecclesiological, ideological and political turned me off. I started studying the different Presbyterian denominations and joined the Presbyterian Church In America. It was much more conservative than the PCUSA. Unlike the Church I was with before there wasn't as much high church custom. The Pastor didn't wear a Geneva robe and there wasn't a church calendar that dictated what color cloths were on the Communion table and pulpit. And no pictures of the very European looking Jesus standing outside a door knocking. There was more emphasis on the covenant between God and His people. The Westminster principles were taught. At that other church there were people who had never heard of the catechism and Christian education was not important. In this church it was very important. I'd had the Heidelberg Catechism when I was a boy and it was a great teaching tool. I had no problem reconciling it with The Westminster Catechism.
Sometimes you have to travel to other lands to appreciate the one you were born into. If you're looking for perfection you're going to have a life of disappointments. The perfect church doesn't exist. The church is as perfect as the people in it. We are all flawed. Try to find someplace that meets most of your expectations. Life is too short to be miserable in it.
A great 'romp' through the main Christian denominations, their theology and praxis! Very helpful in understanding commonalities and differences! Thank you Joshua!
A most interesting video! Great information, and I definitely agree with most of what you said. I especially liked the Latter-day Saints being described as much further away from Catholics and the rest. Because we are!
Yes you are. The sheep that has strayed the farthest.
Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;iii
It depends. In terms of the belief for the need for authority were a closer to Catholics and orthodox. On the subject of authority and keys the rest of the groups drop off dramatically.
I was raised Danish Lutheran (mom) & my dad was Irish Catholic. I grew up in a very fundamental community & many of these folks constantly told me that I was going to hell because I didn't believe the same way as them. I converted to Catholicism in college. I agree with your assessment, & as a Lutheran, I felt very little discrepancy between the way I was raised to the Catholic tradition. I would probably have put Anglicans & Lutherans both at Level 2. I dated a Methodist for a while & going to his church was rather shocking, as there really wasn't a liturgy. A little pamphlet was given to us upon entering church which was the instruction for the service. All of this was fascinating.
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)."
Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13?
I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh
I love it when someone picks their favorite verse and demands that it is the pinnacle of the bible, rejecting all verses which show their error. The whole of the bible is true and many verses must be taken in some context for that to be so. For example Jesus said that those who love the least of his brethren will be saved (Matt 25:31-46). Not one word about calling on him. Was Jesus right or was Paul? Until you can show that your theology points to them both being right in some sense, your theology is false.
@@bridgefin First, it is your choice, but I urge you to be humble instead of proud. For example, your sarcastic remark, "I love it when someone picks their favorite verse and demands that it is the pinnacle of the Bible." Are you a proud person or are you humble, knowing that often, even daily, even moment by moment, you get things wrongs? I know that is my human nature and it keeps me humble. May the Lord do the same for you.
You made a good observation, quoting from Matthew 25, "‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat,..." Great question: are we saved by taking care of the poor or by calling on the Lord? You are missing the heart of the salvation message.
First of all, Jesus said that unless a person is born again, they will not enter heaven (John 3.3). Moreover, being born again is to be filled with the Holy Spirit, as 'what is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit. To be born again, we need only to ask, as Jesus said, "My Father will give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him."
Conversely, if a person takes care of the poor, but has not been born again, they will not enter heaven. Hence, by simply doing good works, you cannot enter heaven, but you must be filled with the Holy Spirit. Moreover, Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." This is not a cosmic guilt trip, as in, 'if you really love God, you better get busy!' It is the exact opposite; it is a 'cause-and-effect relationship. If you love Christ, you will love other people. John put it like this, "For love is of God and everyone loves is born of God and knows God." In Matthew 25, notice, the first qualifications, "...you who are bless by My Father..." That is, a person who has been blessed by God will care for the poor. If a person does not love others, then they are not born of God.
I have answered your Bible verse; will you extend the courtesy by answering Romans 10.13? What does it mean, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved"? Again, if a person calls upon the Name of the Lord, they shall receive the Holy Spirit (Luke 11.13) and a person filled with the Holy Spirit will love other people. Yet, is it true that simply by asking we will receive eternal life or does a person need to be baptized. Please explain Romans 10.13.
I am not trying to win a debate here. I am concerned that you have polluted the pure, simple way that a person may be saved. I am concerned that you might be preventing people from entering heaven, being disqualified yourself. I cannot judge whether you are saved or not, but you have me genuinely concerned as I would earnestly love to see you in heaven. Thanks! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh
You asked: Are you a proud person or are you humble, knowing that often, even daily, even moment by moment, you get things wrongs?
Me: I don't get doctrines wrong because I don't try to establish them. I just retell wat the pillar and foundation with the keys to the kingdom says is true.
You: First of all, Jesus said that unless a person is born again, they will not enter heaven (John 3.3).
Me: That's my point. You can't just pick and choose your favorite verse and ignore the others which are not reconciled to that verse.
You: Conversely, if a person takes care of the poor, but has not been born again, they will not enter heaven.
Me: If that happened to me I would take Jesus to Matt 25 and ask for a hearing. You are stating that Jesus was wrong, or just forgot the message. If being "born again" or baptized was essential then Jesus was compelled to mention it in Matt 25. He didn't so why are you trying to pit Jesus against Jesus????
You: In Matthew 25, notice, the first qualifications, "...you who are bless by My Father..." That is, a person who has been blessed by God will care for the poor.
Me: In other words, some may actually be blessed who were never baptized or "born again". And there is their potential ticket to salvation.
You: I have answered your Bible verse; will you extend the courtesy by answering Romans 10.13? What does it mean, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved"?
Me: Present tense so whoever is calling on the Name of the Lord. Not a one time deal but a continuous relationship when one recognizes their place before the Lord. And it also entails accepting/listening to what the Lord does or says in reply. And where are those answers? Many in Scripture and other in his church. And those who have ears to hear will hear.
You: I am concerned that you have polluted the pure, simple way that a person may be saved.
Me: I sometimes think that Protestants are half-wits who must make everything so simple because they can't deal with complexity. Sola this and sola that, almost always missing the reality of the gospels. Salvation is up to God and Jesus spoke rather at length at what one must DO in order to be saved. It was not simple, and it was not just in the mind or heart but demanded action.
You: I am concerned that you might be preventing people from entering heaven, being disqualified yourself.
Me: Likewise.
You: I cannot judge whether you are saved or not,
Me: But you are free to declare yourself saved. Blasphemy! As if YOU are Jesus who is the ONLY one who determines who is saved and who is lost. And it is not by some simple formula. The WHOLE of the Bible is true and until you accept every single verse you have accepted none of it.
You: ....but you have me genuinely concerned as I would earnestly love to see you in heaven.
Me: Please be more concerned for your own salvation. Out of charity I tell you that you would have been cast out of the early church as a heretic. You refuse to join the only church that Jesus established for our salvation. Hey, I am no saint but I am too weak and too smart to judge myself as saved. I will follow Christ and let him decide at the end of my life. And I invite you to really accept Christ on HIS terms by joining HIS church.
@@bridgefin Hi. Thanks for writing. I hope this conversation has not descended into a tug of war, but of each of us genuinely concerned about the fate of the other. Eternity is at stake. We will either enjoy the restoration of all things or will be cast outside, to howl with the dogs for all eternity. I pray that the Holy Spirit will lead us into unity of belief, according to the Word of God. Amen?
You wrote, "But you are free to declare yourself saved. Blasphemy! As if YOU are Jesus who is the ONLY one who determines who is saved and who is lost." Yet, have you not read, "The Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God (Romans 8.16)"? That is, the Holy Spirit bears witness that I am saved! In fact, referring to the Holy Spirit, Jesus said, "Whoever believes in Me will have rivers of living water bubbling up to eternal life." Do you have those rivers of life? Do you know the Holy Spirit? Does He abide with you?
I can testify of the Holy Spirit's assurance of my salvation with a totally true riddle: 'In the last 45 years, I have not doubted my salvation for even one second! Yet, forty years ago, I did doubt my salvation.' How is it possible for both of these statement to be true? The answer begins with my greatly beloved, but highly abusive father. About 40 years ago, he told me, "Not even God could love you!" I thought, "Yeah, I suppose you are right." Yet, before I could even finish the thought, I was flooded with the Holy Spirit Who bore witness that, through the blood of Christ, I am totally accepted by God. Out of curiousity, I timed my 'period of doubt.' My best guess is that it lasted for 0.34ths of a second. That is how I have not doubted my salvation for even a second, but I did doubt my salvation! God is so good!
Yet, I am simply living out what is written in the Bible, that the Holy Spirit is my 'down payment', my total assurance of salvation, that I am seated in the heavenlies with Christ, that Christ and My Father have made their home with me (For more info on salvation, read John chapters 14-16)! No, I do not judge my own salvation. In fact, it is a challenge to rest in the good graces of God Who has declared me 'not guilty' because of the blood of the Lamb! Glory hallelujah! It is difficult to wrap my brain around my total acceptance by God.
Yes, the gospel is simple. That is, by asking, you meet Christ. When you know Christ, you live to obey His commandments. If the Holy Spirit declares that you are child of God, then 'love never fails'; you will endure to the end. I never, ever have insecurities about my salvation as the Holy Spirit has judged me by the Cross and I am totally pure in God's sight. Who am I to argue with the Holy Spirit?
Is God a good Father? If so, then why do you say that He is so distant? For example, if I am distant with my kids, not letting them know how they are doing until they are 18 and ready to move out of the house, is that a good dad or a dead beat dad? Doesn't a good father affirm his kids, give you a sense of security? What kind of father lurks in the shadows, unreachable, never attaining a sense of favor with him? Doesn't a good father tuck his kids in at night? Doesn't a good dad have lots of praise, but a good swat to the backside when needed? Yet, overwhelmingly, a good father pours out praise?
I do not know the 'god' that you are worshiping, but he is not a good father, but distant and demanding. He is a deadbeat! Wouldn't you call any earthly dad a deadbeat if they behaved similarly?
Yet, you can know God, Who created you for fellowship with Him! You can know God and rest securely in His love. If you haven't guessed, I did not have a supportive earthly father, but it does not matter. The Holy Spirit, those rivers of living water, pour over me, cleansing my soul of any hint of bitterness, providing me with perfect contentment every day (no, that is not a typo: I have perfect contentment). I am perfectly content with whatever God, my beloved Father, has for me. I love to do His will: through hard times or fun. By the grace of God, I am always content.
I hope that you will get to know God! If you wait to the end of your life, I fear that Christ will say to you, "Depart from Me; I never knew you." It doesn't sound, at all, like you now Christ! You have no peace, as you wonder, at the end of the road, will you be accepted or condemned! I do not envy you, but you can know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Thank you for including Anabapitists on this list! :) It's a group that isn't brought up very frequently due to the disinterest in worldly things, but is good to be acknowledged as a group and a people. Generally, I would be extremely weary about mentioning Children of God, Eastern Lightning, etc. but I understand that in reference from _distance_ from Catholic practice, it might make some sense.
I would like to mention that, even if the practices and understandings of each grouping may differ, we are all of the body of Christ, and are brothers. Certainly there is historical troubles among many groups, but is good to remind us that the _purpose_ of each group is not towards human concern, but in order to be pointed towards God. I simply see us as standing along side one another, pointed in that same direction.
No, we are absolutely not all part of the Body of Christ--not all brothers. Those promoting and believing a different gospel are accursed according to Paul in Galatians. They literally forsake Christ and instead choose to trust on their works and their false doctrines for salvation. That means at least 95+% of your "body of Christ" are not even close to being biblical Christians. Just because someone associates with the word Christ or has Judeo-Christian values doesn't make them in the Body.
Be saved/trust on Jesus, be born again, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. If you trust in an idol and false Christ, you are deceived into false religion not a Christian.
Could not have said it better! The world is filled with religions/denominations that preach a Jesus that no way resembles our Lord and Savior that is in the Bible!! @@tannerfrancisco8759
ROLMAO !! The progression of mood on the pope pictures is just brilliant, i needed this, thank you
Also as an Eastern Orthodox, I was very impressed by this video! I know that this is a predominantly a Western Christian channel, and I was afraid that you wouldn't include the Oriental Orthodox, who you not only included, but gave a great analysis (l love the point about the Miaphysite theology making them slightly farther from Catholics than Eastern Orthodox are). Though, think it's worth noting that the Oriental Orthodox are very diverse between the different national churches in terms of liturgy, which I know is a factor you were considering. The Armenian Rite in particular "feels" much more similar to the Latin rite (they use organs, their monks wear hoods, their art style is very Catholic, they make relatively less prominent use of icons than do Eastern Orthodox/Copts/Ethiopians etc.) than the others do.
A few other small points:
- You didn't mention the Assyrian Church of the East, who are a very historically important denomination, and are the most different from Catholics among the ancient liturgical churches.
- You didn't specify whether you're only considering Latin Rite Catholics, or whether you're considering the various Eastern Catholics as well. If you were looking at e.g. Armenian Catholics, it would push the Oriental Orthodox closer than the Eastern Orthodox.
- I would definitely agree with the suggestion you made in the video, that you ended up not going with, that Methodists are closer to Catholics than are Presbyterians/Reformed. It seems to me that Calvinist theology is so different from Catholicism that it should be further. Also, entire sanctification strikes me as having similarities to theosis, which is more associated with Eastern Orthodoxy, but also has a place in Catholicism. In any case, it would seem to me that Methodists have something analogous to a belief in saints, even if there isn't a specific canon of saints and they aren't venerated.
- RE: LDS, I was very surprised to discover talking with an LDS friend that, despite the obvious enormous differences, they actually share some core beliefs with Catholics/Orthodox over Protestants: their ecclesiology is very Catholic, albeit the Church comes through restoration rather than Apostolic Succession, and salvation is a process, that is achieved through participation in the life of the Church. I don't disagree with your ranking, I just thought that was interesting to discover.
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)."
Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13?
I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh He used the Catholic church as the baseline because they are the largest Christian denomination. You could do this very same thing starting with any church and going progressively away from them.
@@DaveMiller2 Hi Dave. Thanks for writing. The Bible is the standard for truth. Since the Catholic church has gone apostate, it is like saying, "What is the closest thing to this counterfeit dollar bill?" It is an exercise in futility.
However, when it comes to eternity, atheists are teaching that everything's over, Hindus are building karma, and the Catholics try to please God with good works.
However, the truth of the matter is that God will judge the world in righteousness. If you have been a good person, you have nothing to worry about. Yet, if you have lied, stolen, and used God's Name in disrespect, you will be judged as a lying thief and a blasphemer.
Unfit for the perfect social fabric of heaven, you would be cast outside with not only lying thieves, but with rapists, murderers, and torturers. In fact, Jesus said that those in hell will be tortured. In this present age, the government, corrupt as it is, protects us against being tortured. Yet, it is a gift from God. In hell, there are no courts, no police, and no jails.
I hope that you know Christ! He died so that we can know Him, that we can be with Him instead of the just torment of hell. Do you know Christ? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh who do you think wrote the Bible? Which Church held councils to form the Biblical Canon, and why do you use a Bible that had removed entire books? The Catholic Church believes in Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium. The Catholic Church is older than the Bible, especially the mistranslated KJV. Stop worshipping the Bible as an idol.
@@j.alexander3001 Hi. Thanks for writing. You asked, "Who wrote the Bible?" Well, there was Moses, David, Matthew, Paul, John and many in between. None of them attended church in Rome and only Paul mentioned Rome - but with no particular bias. In fact, there were churches in Corinth, Ephesus, and other cities, so Rome is not the only valid church. That said, I am thankful for the Council of Hippo, for the codification of the Bible. The brothers in Rome did a great job!
Yet, if you think, because the Bible became canon in Rome, that I should disobey the Bible because Rome says so, I don't think I will, thank you very much! In fact, Paul wrote that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, he should be accursed - how much more so the Catholic church! Paul also wrote, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)." That is, just by asking, we can be filled with the Holy Spirit, born again, seated in the heavenlies with Christ, eternally secure by the Holy Spirit, Who bears witness of our eternal salvation (Romans 8.16).
Judge for yourself: should I believe Paul or the Catholic church that teaches baptism is necessary for salvation? However, before you trot out Bible verses that, supposedly, 'prove' the necessity of baptism for salvation, please solve the contradiction! Is it true that whoever calls will be saved or do I need baptism to be saved? You do realize that both cannot be true! Suppose you produced a Bible verse that said, "Without baptism, you cannot be saved." You would only serve to prove that Romans 10.13 is a lie, the Bible being a lie, and the Catholic church supporting that lie! You cannot win, except to believe Romans 10.13 - and call upon the Name of the Lord!
Christ died on a Cross so that, just by asking, we can know Him! I hope that you will! You are an enemy of God's, preaching a false gospel, leading others to hell, in grave danger of going to hell under God's severe wrath. Jesus warned you not to follow the traditions of men! Do not be a fool! Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you through the Bible, not trusting the blind to lead the blind! God wants to be your Teacher, your Friend, and your Guide! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
This was a great video, which just happened to show up on my feed. I am a Catholic Priest although I actually attended a Divinity School rather than a seminary. I'm pleased I chose to get my MDiv from a secular school rather than a denominational seminary. And I was in the minority in class. It was rather an interesting bunch of classmates (including some atheists!!!). I think that exposure to greater (and very different) ideas has made me a better priest??? Thank you for posting this video - it is highly informative and you seem to have done quite a bit of homework here.
FYI: The Catholic Church, although synonymous with ROMAN CATHOLIC, for most people, are actually actually a family member of Churches, themselves having 5 particular churches and 23 different ways of worshiping.
Wow, now's that's Christian diversity.
When are you going to become a Christian?
Remember this poem as your pray the rosary.
“I saw a lady with some beads, I asked her, ‘What are the beads for?’ She said, ‘We use these to venerate Mary’ I said, ‘Where are your beads to venerate God?’ She said, ‘We don’t have those?’“
God Himself gave me that poem.
Or read this verse:
“But when ye pray, use not vain REPETITIONS as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.”
Matthew 6:7 KJV
In other verses, God calls repetitive prayer an abomination. Not only are you praying to someone (Mary) who certainly cannot hear your prayers, but your doing the very thing God doesn’t want you to do! Do you think leaders of Catholicism don’t know this? Of course they do!
Catholicism = Antichrist
Google Search “Papal Audience Hall/images”
You will see your leader, speaking from a Serpent’s mouth.
I was Catholic for 42 years. I never had a relationship with God, until I left Catholicism.
As a Catholic I was like a fish swimming in dirty water. It wasn’t until I got out of the water and looked back, that I noticed how dirty the water really is.
May you find the correct God soon, and stop the idolatry towards Catholicism.
God Bless!
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)."
Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13?
I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh
And again:
I love it when someone picks their favorite verse and demands that it is the pinnacle of the bible, rejecting all verses which show their error. The whole of the bible is true and many verses must be taken in some context for that to be so. For example Jesus said that those who love the least of his brethren will be saved (Matt 25:31-46). No one word about calling on him. Was Jesus right or was Paul? Until you can show that your theology points to them both being right in some sense, your theology is false.
@@kenshiloh Ken just curious what false man made church/ faith version of protestantism do you belong to?
@@kenshiloh I think several centuries of animosity is enough. Bye
I'm Nazarene, which is a Wesleyan-holiness denomination. I don't know about other denominations in our tradition, but I'm pretty sure that we are a lot closer to catholics than the reformed. I can't think of a way we aren't.
Shhh... I don't think you are wrong, but don't tell some of your fellow Nazarenes that!
@2:11, We refer to the extra 7 books as deurocanonical books instead of apocryphal books. We do think there are apocryphal books such as the Gospel of Thomas but those 7 extra books in the catholic canon we refer to again as deurocanonical. Some eastern churches would even have a canon beyond the deurocanonical books.
Wonderfully clear and comprehensive! Well done!
Really great video. Well thought out. I definitely put Methodists slightly closer than Presbyterians (which I am), mostly because of the supra-congregational polity and their liturgical connection to Anglicans. I became a Presbyterian almost 24 years ago when it was becoming a lot more liturgical (which I am meh about). I do agree that in the past there was a relationship with the local community around a church that was similar to a parish structure which different now.
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)."
Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13?
I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
So Michael, I was christened Methodist and confirmed and raised United Presbyterian which is PCUSA now. Any Presbyterians that are not PCUSA or PCA the mainline denominations are offshoots of the Presbyterians and the Church of Scotland. So they may be very far in doctrine and practice from the mainline denominations. Example Orthodox Presbyterian, Reformed Presbyterian and others.
The Church of Scotland ( the mother church of Presbyterianism) with its founder John Knox was a Roman Catholic priest. The Church broke off and became Protestant. And with that was formed the Westminster Confession. And also you are wrong, The Church of England did subscribe to the Westminister Confession of Faith originally. The Westminster Confession of Faith is a Reformed confession of faith. Drawn up by the 1646 Westminster Assembly as part of the Westminster Standards to be a confession of the Church of England, it became and remains the "subordinate standard" of doctrine in the Church of Scotland and has been influential within Presbyterian churches worldwide.
In 1643, the English Parliament called upon "learned, godly and judicious Divines" to meet at Westminster Abbey in order to provide advice on issues of worship, doctrine, government and discipline of the Church of England. Their meetings, over a period of five years, produced the confession of faith, as well as a Larger Catechism and a Shorter Catechism. For more than three hundred years, various churches around the world have adopted the confession and the catechisms as their standards of doctrine, subordinate to the Bible.
Now regarding your claim about Methodists and Anglicans, I understand. But remember Methodist were an off shoot of Anglicans, Anglicans also were Reformed and Methodist are not. Also Presbyterians are Confessional or Creedal just as Anglicans and Lutherans are. The Methodist, Congregational and Baptists are not. Presbyterians were also remember the Roman Catholic Church reformed, however they had close ties with the Church of England, and The Church of Scotland was a break away.
Regarding the Puritans. They were only influential in small amounts of Presbyterians along with Congregational and Baptists. This is the reason many Presbyterians during colonial times that came from Scotland to the USA would not attend a Presbyterian church influenced by Puritans, it was too different. Many times they would actually attend and Anglican church, as it was closer and akin to their Church of Scotland.
St Giles Cathedral in Edinburgh Scotland is the mother church of Presbyterians. You should look them up and observe their services. In fact one of their student ministers now, is a African ordained Anglican Priest.
You may also want to look into the agreement that the Roman Catholic Church has with the Church of Scotland since May 2022. It is called the St Margaret Declaration. This is a big move for both denominations.
Again the Church of Scotland is the mother church for Presbyterians.
Hope this helps.
Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;iii
@@lufhopespeacefully2037 The bible is not broken down into "every important historical fact between 1000 BCE and 70 CE" "the entire theology of Christianity" "The complete biography of Jesus" "How the church at Rome was founded." Lots of great details were left out. It's clear that Jesus wants us to baptize new Christians and to share bread and wine with each other, but provides rather little details about how we should do this. Did Jesus want us to form churches? We depend upon those who wrote systematized theology to explain the barely or unexplained. This is different than using tradition and lore and lifting it to the level of scripture. If the Father existed before the world and Jesus assisted in creation and the Spirit lived before creation, then they are all of the same substance, not created or made, the Godhead. We can know the Father through the scripture which is inspired by the Spirit and Jesus said that because we know him, we know the Father.
@@MichaelJohnson-vi6eh , ,so u indirectly admitted that trinity is man made ,therefore christianity also the same thing bc it`s based on trinity,,as far as i know trinity is an old worshipping for some an egyptians who have worshipped ezice,authorice&hurce ,later on the church has abducted the notion&also The concept of a trinity predates the Bible. The much older Hindu Vedas had a holy trinity,peace mich
General rule: The earlier the split from the Church, the more the similarities.
The Catholic Church was there the firstest with the mostest.
@@jayray2513 yeah, too bad it was bastardized by the Romans.
Unless we wanted to consider the ancient heresies, like the Ebionites or the Valentinian or Sethian Gnostics. Would love to see a video that included them.
Which is wierd, don't you think?
One would assume at first that the earlier the split the easier for them to drift appart
@@andresmartinezramos7513 I think it is because the later splits weren't really splitting from Catholicism itself, but from a group that split from a group that split from Catholicism etc., so they are oftentimes several degrees separated.
Like many of your other videos, I don’t agree 100% with your conclusions, but I strongly admire your attempt to address sensitive issues fairly. I wish you were a mainstream journalist!
Very interesting topic. I agree with your order based off of beliefs and practices. I wonder how the order would change when taking into account movement of members from one denomination to another. My husband was baptized Amish, but now attends a Catholic Church with me, and he’s mentioned that he feels they are much more similar than many of the higher ranked denominations. Thanks again for your very thoughtful work. Happy Easter!
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)."
Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13?
I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh
I see the game you are playing. So here goes:
I love it when someone picks their favorite verse and demands that it is the pinnacle of the bible, rejecting all verses which show their error. The whole of the bible is true and many verses must be taken in some context for that to be so. For example Jesus said that those who love the least of his brethren will be saved (Matt 25:31-46). No one word about calling on him. Was Jesus right or was Paul? Until you can show that your theology points to them both being right in some sense, your theology is false.
It’s nice to see Anabaptists actually be included in the discussion of the Christian faithful; props to this channel and the work you do, it is important and helpful for the entire Body of Christ!
This is a very accurate list. There is only one Church I would say I would put radically differently. That's Pentecostalism. I live in a country famous for Catholics converting into Pentecostalism and vice versa, and I gotta tell you, the differences really are not that big as long as you are willing to take actual practice into consideration more than just looking into historical context. For example, modern Catholicism contains Holy Spirit Renewal movement, which is a massive movement much bigger than most entire denominations outside of it. Literally, hundreds of millions of Catholics are a part of it. This movement preaches gifts of the Spirit as essential part of Christians life including tongues, it emphasizes join worship meetings and private reading of the Bible being main source of believer's faith, includes the post-baptism experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit as a major event in every true believer's life, and is characterized by a very Pentecostal-like worship style, even during official Catholic Masses. The Church isn't some borderline non-Catholic extremism either, at least that's not how the magisterium perceives it, as several consecutive Popes have whole-heartedly embraced the movement and even stated officially that they wish their practices, including the baptism in the Holy Spirit, were spread throughout the whole Catholic Church. If you compare these positions with the Pentecostals, and stack it on top of other pre-existing similarities like the fact they both believe salvation can be lost etc, I'd say they rival the Orthodox for number 1 spot, or at the very least - Lutherans, for number 2 spot. Of course, if you focus on historical Catholicism which would reject vast majority of this even 50 years ago, your list is much more accurate. But like I said, with hundreds of millions of Catholics being engaged in this, and the magisterium welcoming that with open arms, I don't think this is something that can be ignored.
Yes exactly this. I found my love for God in pentecostal faith, and catholism is the only faith that draws me now. For the very reasons you expounded on.
@@homemanager1724 God bless you my Pentecostal Brother!
Grew up Methodist and was always uncomfortable with some points of their doctrine. Left and started coming to church of the Nazarene, which was similar but seemed more grounded and adherent to Scripture. Recently attended Catholic Mass and my word, the worship just hit different. There wasn't a lot of meet & greet with neighbor interaction it was nearly entirely focused on raising our minds, souls, and spirits to commune with God. I did miss the love they neighbor vibe many protestant churches have but I get the Catholic vibe also.
What you described has a name in the bible--witchcraft. Using works of the flesh to achieve a spiritual result and manipulating people's emotions to feel as if something is happening but is not of God is witchcraft. Catholicism is the brainchild of a bunch of homosexual pedophiles combining idolatry, paganism, and plutonic philosophy with out of context biblical references sprinkled in occasionally. It's why the Spirit of God hasn't been in it for 1600 years.
Try a Lutheran church. Best of both worlds.
I'm Catholic. A lot of people have indeed complained that our churches aren't interactive enough, but I think that a lot of that is just to do with the fact that, as you said, it's really more of a God-oriented service. The whole point of Catholic communal worship is the Mass and the Eucharist.
A Catholic church is definitely a place where you have to be quiet to show reverence. Fortunately, many churches have good social programs outside of worship, like youth groups, etc. But even on this, I admit that Protestants typically do a better job.
@@gunsgalore7571 many good people in catholicism, but according to the Bible, it's not Christianity.
@@tony1685 Well, maybe it's not Christianity under a Protestant interpretation of the Bible, but Catholics have been reading the Bible for 4 times as long as Protestants, and we've never found a conflict between our faith and the Bible. In fact, if you don't believe in the Bible, you can't be Catholic, because believing in the Bible is a fundamental part of our religion.
Now, if you believe that one must believe in sola fide to be a Christian, then I guess you could say that we aren't Christian by that definition. But sola fide has never been a part of the Christian faith before the 1500s. Numerous passages in the Bible, including the second chapter of James, Matthew 25:31-46, and others make it clear that sola fide is not true. By any normal and biblically-accurate standard, we are Christians.
Love your videos! I really appreciate you using Latter-day Saints instead of Mormons this time around. Your respectful approach is one of your hallmarks.
"I'm a Mormon" was all over billboards several years ago? Or has that fallen down the memory hole? This was Russell M. Nelson's personal hobby horse. He was even slapped down for it by Gordon B. Hinckley thirty years ago, but he gets in and does it anyway. There is nothing offensive about the word Mormon, in fact it derives from the name of the book which missionaries give out.
Actually the LDS does have some similarities to Roman Catholicism and the most obvious example is unquestioning acceptance of the leader in many cases.
@@thursoberwick1948 Haha, just wanted to say thank you for the shift towards a more respectful approach. In my experience, when a person or group says they don't want to be called a certain name, even if they were fine with it (or even encouraging of it) in the past, it's a respectful thing to honor that request.
I have an appreciation for you, too. Elder Nelson's 1990 talk on the name of the Church was wonderful, and apparently President Hinckley thought so, too. If telling everyone "Six months ago in our conference Elder Russell M. Nelson delivered an excellent address on the correct name of the Church.... I commend to you a rereading of his talk," counts as getting slapped down, then I hope that I get slapped down by a prophet someday. Thank you for pointing my attention to both of those wonderful talks.
@@scotthuff2051 It is RMN's personal hobbyhorse and not a sudden revelation. It is not an offensive term at all, and easier for most people to remember than the alternatives. It was sad to see all the profiles on the "I'm a Mormon" website pulled down, and then some of the same people coming out and saying they were never Mormon in the first place. (Despite its use by every president beforehand, Bruce R. McConkie and others like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, which now has a bureaucratic sounding name.)
Nothing "respectful" about it. Nelson should have taken the advice Hinckley gave him, instead of obsessing over it and create an analogue to speech issues elsewhere.
@@thursoberwick1948
“And so, brethren and sisters, when you go away from here, you may be associating with various denominations of the world, but remember that there is only one Church in all the world that by divine command bears the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord D&C 115:4 I am sure we will show our appreciation of that great and wonderful name by respecting it, and not be found calling ourselves Mormons as the world nicknames us.“
-George Albert Smith, October, 1948.
Nelson’s initiative is not a new thing; and as you doubtless know but neglected to elucidate here-while the church has always distributed the Book of Mormon, it was the church’s detractors who first used the term as a descriptor of the church’s followers.
Also: as Mr. Huff has shown, Hinckley’s citation of Nelson was *positive*; the tenor of Hinckley’s October 1990 address was simply “the term probably won’t go away; and you live so that you are living in such a way as to be a credit to whatever name the world chooses to place upon you”. In fact, in that talk Hinckley expressly agreed that “I sometimes regret that people do not call this church by its proper name”; and in February of 2001 a First Presidency letter bearing Hinckley’s signature reiterated the directive to use the full name of the Church. Your muckraking attempt to make it look like there was some kind of rift between Hinckley and Nelson, comes across as rather incomplete-at least, to those of us who spend our time reading conference addresses rather than the rantings of people like Jana Reiss (from whose 2018 column I suspect you are cribbing most of your talking points).
@@thursoberwick1948 You know things are serious when Bruce R. McConkie shows up, lol.
I'm not sure why you are so invested in the topic, but as for me, even if this was a hobbyhorse, I'd rather follow a prophet's hobbyhorse than the wisdom the world has to offer.
I was raised in a United Methodist Church and once I was invited to church with my friend's family. They were Anglican-Episcopalian. Somehow I got roped into being in the choir that Sunday. It was a little tricky keeping up with the different traditions and less familiar songs in front of the whole congregation. 😄
I went to a seminary (Saint Paul University in Ottawa, Canada) that was run by the Catholics, but had departments for Anglican, and Eastern studies. The Eastern people were mainly Ukrainian Catholics, although there were others, including some Orthodox. We all took the same courses from the same professors who could be any of the three. Theologically, we were all if not identical, as close as one can be. There were some practice differences (e.g., the easterners standing for worship), and Anglicans having female clergy. But, Theologically, we were super close. Anglicans officially do NOT consider ourselves Protestant. We never actually protested anything. Anglicans are "catholic, and reformed." Catholics basically reformed themselves with Vatican II, so we really are very close!
This is so cool! I love that different branches of Christianity and study together and respect one another’s differences for the sake of all that we agree on :)
I'm Catholic(and from Ottawa)and my very religious mother took us to an Anglican Church for 3 years when we lived overseas. Because it had a much better sense of community than the Catholic churches near us(one of them had an hour long service every hour on the hour, it was brutal). I think that the Venn diagram of Anglican and Catholic parishes has a lot of overlap, especially because most Catholics(in Canada at least) are more liberal than the church is officially (trying to avoid schisms is certainly a problem, the Catholic church at the UofO, has actually marched in the Ottawa pride parade). I normally attended a very liberal(but older congregation, the church was built shortly after V2 when the neighborhood was being built) Catholic church in Ottawa, we actually had regular guest priests including a priest with the interfaith housing initiative, and a professor from St. Paul's(who gave a homily at the Easter vigil about punctuation which still stands out as excellent 10 years later).
I think the only Catholics I know(like actually know, not just as a priest I've met)who have been ordained in the last 30 years, actually converted to Anglicanism(but then they were both women so 🤷♀️). Honestly I think that is a really big problem now, because the clergy is becoming more conservative(and many are either converts to Catholicism or are immigrants from more conservative countries) at the same time as parishioners are becoming more liberal.
The Roman Catholic church has a different Jesus than scripture.
@@langleybeliever7789 As Catholics, like Anglicans, and others have Scripture as a fundamental core of faith, I would dispute that.
@@klondikechris Who said I'm Anglican?
Biblical Jesus
- eternal life
- complete forgiveness
- permanent right standing with God
' peace and assurance
Roman Catholic Jesus
- conditional life- partial forgiveness
- uncertianty , fear, foubt and false hope.
1 John 5:13- These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God: that you may KNOW you have eternal life, and that you might BELIEVE on the name of the Son of God.
Danke!
Thank you!
Catholic convert here, I grew up Presbyterian. I think Methodists are slightly closer to Catholic than Presbyterians. Otherwise I agree 100%. Thanks for the great video!!!
Thanks! That seems to be the consensus among people who have commented on the issue. Wisdom of the crowd.
Bill, I have a challenge for you. Do you want the truth? Do you want the truth that the Holy Ghost might be convicting you about?
If you have the guts think and pray about these things. God will not refuse a humble spirit.
You can quote church fathers all day and it won't mean a thing, you cannot argue the facts below.
Roman Catholics and Orthodox believe the bible......until you show them James 1:1 and compare James 2 with Revelation 14:9-12 which proves that James 2 DOES teach faith and work, but NOT for the body of Christ. This is because in the tribulation you must avoid the mark of the beast to be saved.
But Paul very clearly teaches works are separated from salvation atleast for the church.
Romans 4
4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Extremely clear, but I realize you Catholics have heard James 2 so much you don't even get this passage.
And as far as other question you Catholics have to answer, there's plenty:
ruclips.net/video/vgwC9uYdabo/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/oz990ugwmlA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/4A0w0DoYeew/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/rM0z0DL3lhc/видео.html
I am RC and often enjoy worshipping with Methodist's. I like their simplicity and their Wesleyan History which empowered people through education and cooperation.
As a "Church of Christ" person, I totally concur. I've always felt more in common with Catholics and Orthodox when it comes to doctrine,than the Reformed mainstream denominations. I'll point out the Orthodox also don't use instruments.
you do have a lot 'in common' with catholcism - both of your churches ignore Exodus 20:8-11 and follow the pagan papal sun worship day, as opposed to the Christian 7th day Sabbath, the only Holy day set aside by our Creator.
so you're actually honoring the 'pope' rather than God when you pretend today is the Holy day.
Bible is clear on this, Jim.
former (35 yr) catholic, now Christian and Bible teacher.
thanks for reading.
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)."
Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13?
I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@tony1685 There seems to be a strong misunderstanding about why many denominations hold their meetings and worship services on Sundays. As someone who attends a Church of Christ, we don't claim (or in your words "pretend") that Sunday is the Holy Day, nor do we follow some "pagan papal sun worship day". Meeting together on Sunday goes back to the New Testament church often meeting on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2). We don't claim it is the Holy Day, rather we are modeling after the early church and Paul.
@@mostlikelyaperson2022 hi Ma'am, thanks for your input - but the 7th day is a day for _'holy convocation'_ (gathering) as Leviticus 23:3 tell us.
and if Paul kept Sabbath in service - Acts 17:2 - shouldn't we?
and if Jesus Christ keeps Sabbath in service - Luke 4:16 - shouldn't we?
Acts 20:7 doesn't say they were in service, only that Paul was with them for his final time. we know Paul kept Sabbath in church.
and 1 Cor 16:2 - this wasn't speaking of church on sunday either - notice in Acts 18:1 - Paul went to Corinth - this is the same place and time.
now read Acts 18:4 - how it states that he was in service _'every Sabbath'_ and there were both jews and greeks there.
so if you want to follow the True church - be sure to obey the 7th day Sabbath Command from Exodus 20:8-11.
this Command also shows all that the sunday is only one of '6 work days'.
if you do this, then naturally the Holy day is the day you'd like to spend in church!
thanks for reading, Ma'am.
always ask questions!
@@MB-fk5mg Hi. If you will let's look at the Bible as God inerrant Word. For example, what does the Bible say about people who are saved? They obey the Lord, the bear fruit, they endure to the end, etc. Combine those truths with Romans 10.13, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." That means that whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall bear fruit, obey the Lord, and endure to the end - otherwise, according to the Word of God, they would not be saved. Conversely, we could confidently say that no person in hell tonight truly called upon the Name of the Lord. How does this all fit together? Let's look at more verses that describe the salvation experience.
For example, concerning the Holy Spirit, Jesus said, "Whoever believes on Me will have rivers of living water bubbling up to eternal life." Obviously, the word 'believe' has a deeper meaning than is often associated with this verse. In fact, let's combine this truth with John 17.3, "This is eternal life, that you know God and Jesus Christ Whom He has sent." Since whoever 'believes' is saved and salvation is knowing Christ, then 'believing' implies knowing Jesus Christ. In fact, if a person is not filled with the Holy Spirit, if they do not have those rivers of living water, then neither do they believe in Christ, neither are they saved!
Jesus said, "My Father will give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Do you not see the 'ask and receive' nature of salvation? Simply by asking, you receive the Holy Spirit and simply by calling, you are saved. Moreover, the Bible describes salvation, that we are seated in the heavenlies with Christ, that we boldly enter the throne room of God through the blood of Christ, that the Holy Spirit bears witness to our salvation, and that the Holy Spirit is our 'down payment', our taste of heaven, our assurance of salvation. All this, from simply calling on the Name of the Lord! Of course, after you are saved, it is good to be baptized! Those who know Christ obey Him! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Pretty much exactly the list I had in mind other than you added ones I wouldn't have thought of. I always appreciate how factual and unbiased your comments are.
This is great. I wish more Christians understood the history of the faith and the differences explained here.
yet if more Christians understood the Bible, there would be many less catholics - more Christians.
A couple of thoughts:
1. You have relatively recent Catholic spinoffs. In the 1870s, there were the Old Catholics or Polish National Catholics that disagreed with the teaching of Papal infallibility that came out of Vatican I. Then in the wake of the Vatican II changes to the liturgy and rejection of the more conservative positions of the Council of Trent and several Popes, there was the rise of the sedevacantist group, which holds that the Papacy has been vacant since the death of Pius XII, and of the SSPX and SSPV groups. The Old Catholic split was on the "left" and the post-Vatican II split was on the "right", yet both agree on the teachings of pre-1870 church councils, the church doctors, and Popes and believe in apostolic succession. They nay be 1a, and the Eastern Orthodox groups 1b.
2. Historically, the Anglican Church provided common ground for three factions: the High Church or Anglo-Catholics, who accept the teachings of the pre-Trent Catholic Church; the Low Church, which is more distinctly Protestant, and which in turn is split between Calvinist and Arminian/Wesleyan factions; and the Broad Church, which is theologically liberal unlike the other two factions. The Episcopal Church in America is dominated by the Broad Church faction, and the next largest Anglican faction in the U.S., the Anglican Church in North America has both High Church and Low Church elements. My late mother in law attended a Low Church Episcopal parish in the 1930s, and when she became a Presbyterian upon marriage, she noted relatively little difference in the worship style, other than the black Geneva robes Presbyterians favor.
Fascinating. You should do a video!
Everything that comes out of the papacy is to be rejected automatically.
I wish you would make a video about the various churches' stances on eschatology.
So far I agree with your list. Catholic and Lutheran liturgy are very similar. The Catholic songbook even contains "A Mighty Fortress is Our God", Martin Luther 's seminal Reformation hymn.
An interesting contact between Anabaptist and Catholic thought has come through the general work of Stanley Hauerwas and John Howard Yoder. They both spent a lot of time teaching at Notre Dame. Yoder's life has come under a lot of scrutiny and rightfully so. Many of Hauerwas's doctoral students (and other levels of graduate school students) at Duke have been Catholics with an affinity for Anabaptist thinking or reformed students with a deep interest in Catholicism. Many of his doctoral students eventually joined the Roman Catholic Church. In both cases, these scholars have often gotten teaching positions and present this outlook in Catholic and Protestant settings of higher education. I studied at Dayton (where this was a reality at both a faculty and graduate student level) without really falling into any of these camps. I liked learning more about Lindbeck and linguistic philosophy but ... this was not and has not been my path.
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)."
Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13?
I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Interesting, and can't disagree significantly overall. Keep up the good work!
Very interesting video! As an anabaptist Mennonite that leans conservative it is funny I often see more in common with my Catholic and Orthodox brothers than those in the middle of your list. Perhaps it is due to the Catholics commitment to their theology while so many others are progressivising
As an Adventist, I have to say you were quite accurate in your assessment and it's placement. Thank-you.
who wrote the bible?
@@sniperpronerfmods9811 Men inspired by the Holy Spirit to declare God's word.
@@claudiasimon3140 who were these men? What authority did they have, why dont you have it?
@@claudiasimon3140 how many hundreds of years did Christians have no bible to read?
@@sniperpronerfmods9811 These men were used by God so we might have a record and prophesy. They were used by God at specific times and for specific reasons/warnings so as to direct His people in the correct direction and to provide understanding. It is God's desire that all be saved .......that all have the choice. Obviously, not everyone has had
the calling that Moses, Isaiah, John, or Paul had! But we do all have the commission to witness and to spread the gospel message as revealed in scriptures.
The Pope Francis stills used were rather amusing 😉 Happy Easter!
🐣
Thank you cradle Catholic here Pre-Vatican ll, Member of the Knights of Columbus. Good job.
Do you go to the Columbus Day events?
I am notngoing down you "woke rabbit hole " we the Knights are a service organization that does humanitarian work world wide . At present in the Ukrainian / Polish border providing meals a rest stations to the people fleeing the War. Here in NC we have provided 87,000 meals to anyone who need help with food during the Epidemic.
@@ronaldbobeck1026 I was just asking to see if you go to the events in D.C. I neither implied nor meant any offense to the legacy of Christopher Columbus.
@@Jacob-pu4zj why not, he was a horrible person. Screw Columbus.
Very interesting. In studying the Amish, I noted the use of "Ordnung", or Order for the church rule to which each baptized community member must abide. They have different manners of dress, and different modes of transportation in each group. In this way, it's like an order of monks or nuns in Catholicism, except they are married.
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)."
Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13?
I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh I used to be Baptist and am now moving towards Eastern Orthodoxy. I'm not Catholic, I'm just noting how Anabaptists took a feature of monasticism and made it for married couples and families. Surely you've noticed Franciscans have brown robes while others have black robes. They have various "orders" of monks and nuns. It's just historically interesting that the group that's about as anti-Catholic as possible used that same structure of having an "order" people join. Orthodox don't have the same view of Baptism as Catholics. It's the replacement for circumcision, but since we don't believe babies or children have sin that would put them in hell, there's not any fear of dying unbaptized. The thief on the Cross was not baptized, but Jesus said you must be born of the water and the Spirit to be born again when he was talking to Nicodemus. Just remember many will say Lord, Lord and not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. We shouldn't judge others, even Catholics who have a lot of additions to the original apostolic faith, nor Protestants who deny Christ's presence in the Eucharist. What a trick of Satan to convince Zwingli that it was just "in memory". Read the last part of John 6 to see what I mean. The Israelites ate the Passover lamb. Blessings!
@@OrthodoxInquirer Hi. Thanks for writing. Speaking of John 6, Jesus said, "It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you, they are spirit and they are life." That is, Jesus' words are not about physical bread, but about being born of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, if you are going to say that communion is necessary for salvation, what do you do with Luke 11.13, "My Father will give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him"? If you add things to the gospel, you negate the words of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, if you are going to say that Jesus is actually bread, are you also claiming that He is a rock, a vine, and a water fountain? God continually used metaphors about Himself which, when taken literally, becomes an absurdity - for example, Jesus is a loaf of bread!
Most importantly, if someone had 60 seconds to live and asked you how they could get saved, what would you tell them? Thanks! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh Some of the verses you quote have to do with salvation being opened up to the gentiles and not just the Jews. Whoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved does not mean that people can't lose their salvation, it means salvation is open to the entire world. Look at the context. If someone had 60 seconds to live, I would have them repent and call on the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. I would also try to baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. My dad had a near death experience, saw Jesus, and came back and told us he wanted to be baptized. He never got "strong enough" to go get into the baptismal pool at church. Someone should have just sprinkled him but they didn't because they didn't think it was important, and he died unbaptized. God is merciful and I don't think it automatically sentenced him to hell, but the minister(s) surrounding him had bad theology and didn't even offer to baptize him in the hospital bed. They didn't know it gives forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit even though it says it right there in the Bible. The Western traditions and especially Protestants have a lack of appreciation for being able to strive for holiness. That stems from not having fasting rules, prayer rules, or spiritual fathers (by rules, it's not one rule for everyone, but a suggested course of action given by the spiritual father for that specific person). Protestants have seen the problem, but they are making up their own approaches like the Daniel fast during January and having mentors volunteer to pair up with new Christians. Everyone is buying various books on prayer and doing various things but do people really pray for half an hour if they have to think of all the words themselves? Has the West really benefited from doubting the Bible and trying to judge all the ancient traditions? It's very prideful for people to say the Holy Spirit has given the person an understanding of a certain passage just based on reading the English translation and without Patristic commentaries. Has fighting all authority been good for us, or just made us full of pride? Did giving up making the sign of the cross really help anything or did it just give Satan a laugh that Christians had one less defense mechanism? Zwingli started that "in memory of" business and it's gotten so bad that my Baptist pastor said, "It's just a cracker." Orthodoxy thinks the Eucharist is a mystery and doesn't call it transubstantiation. It is the Holy Spirit that comes down and transforms it into the body and blood. If you took samples of it, it would still look like bread under the microscope, but it's of the Spirit and has spiritual grace and the ability for us to receive Christ Himself. Jesus did not say it was a parable like He did wherever He gave other parables. I read that 70% of Catholics don't believe it's the actual body and blood. Not sure of the Orthodox statistics, but it may also be pretty high among those born into it. There are a lot of people taking it unworthily, which means not believing it's the body and blood. The Spirit does give the bread and wine "life".
@@OrthodoxInquirer Hi. Thanks for writing. First, I am not defending the protestant religion. In fact, I first heard the gospel through a Catholic movie based on the life of Jesus and the Holy Spirit bore witness that the gospel is true. A short time later, I walked onto the lawn of a church one night and prayed my first prayer, "Is there Jesus? I would like to meet Him!" I extended my hands forward and I saw the Lord descend the last couple of feet to the earth, a white silhouette. I could see the outline of His robe. He took a step and took my hands. Instantly, I felt heaven all over and it felt like my heart was made out of gold. I walked away thinking, "That was heaven, but I am on earth. What is heaven doing on earth?"
Jesus said, "Ask and you shall receive." I asked to meet the Lord and received eternal life. As Christ has said, "This is eternal life, that you know God and Jesus Christ Whom He has sent." Conversely, to those who do not know Him, He will say, "Depart from Me; I never knew you." Hence, salvation is a meeting with Christ and you meet Him just by asking. Of course, after I was saved, I obeyed the Lord in baptism. Yet, I was saved the moment that I was born again, born into the family of God. Have you not read, "Whoever asks will receive"? These are the words of Christ; how can you not know them?
Hence, salvation is a personal encounter with the Lord and you meet Him simply by asking. Yet, if you are going to maintain that you cannot meet the Lord without being baptized, then you contradict the Lord Jesus Who said, "My Father will give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him (Luke 11.13)." That is, concerning your earthly father, he did not need to be baptized to be saved, but if he genuinely called upon the Name of the Lord - and if you genuinely call upon Him - and you are both genuinely filled with the Holy Spirit, then you both shall meet again in heaven. Yet, work out your salvation with fear and trembling. In fact, if you are not certain that you are saved, you probably are not! That is, are you seated in the heavenlies with Christ, does the Holy Spirit abides with you?
You seem intelligent, so please consider carefully: if baptism is necessary for salvation, then it is not true that whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved. It is like an employer promising you $50 for mowing a lawn, then requiring you to wash windows. That is fraud! In the same way, if Paul says that by calling, you will be saved, then if you add other qualifications, you make Paul into a liar and a fraud.
However, Mark 16.16 seems to be the most popular Bible verse that 'proves' the necessity of baptism for salvation. It reads that if you believe and are baptized, you will be saved. This is called a conditional statement. That is, without reference to any other Bible verses, there would be three possibilities: 1) that only baptism is necessary, 2) that only believing is necessary, or 3) that both are necessary. For example, if I were to say, "With my lucky rabbit's foot and a million dollars, I can see the world." That would be a conditional statement and would be true, but only the money is truly necessary for seeing the world. In the same way, baptism is extremely important, but not necessary for salvation.
Jesus said, "Whoever believes in Me will have rivers of living water bubbling up unto eternal life." Conversely, if you do not know the Lord, if you do not have those rivers of living water, if the Holy Spirit does not abide with you, then neither are you saved. Do you know the Lord or do you simply have 'religious experiences'?
As for my testimony, I met the Lord in the Spring of 1977 and since that time, I can honestly say that I have not had even one second of doubt that I know the Lord and am bound for heaven - not even for a second. That is because I have those rivers of life and the Holy Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God (Romans 8.16). If you do not know Christ - personally - then you are not saved. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
12:52
I'd say Mennonites could be on tier six (or 5.5). Say, my mother (MSN ICU nurse) has a (male) Amish shift nursing supervisor. I've also taken classes with classmates who are practicing Mennonites (they use pastel colors, unlike the Amish, like my mom's co-worker when he's off his work scrubs).
Charismatic Catholics hold to the teachings of the Catholic Church especially everything included in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Heavy into scripture and the gifts of the spirit including prophecy, tongues, healing, etc. Praise & Worship first & foremost. I’m a Catholic Convert - April 2, 1983, my Triple Crown - Baptized, Confirmation & Holy Communion. Scott Hahn, Steve Ray & Al Kresta also converts helped in my growth. Also, shout out to Derek Prince who was Non-Denominational preacher. Learned a lot from him also. In addition to many of the catholic prayers, my wife and I also include Derek’s Overcomer’s Prayer!
I am an Eastern Rite Catholic. I have a friend who was raised Roman Catholic,but now attends an Evangelical Free Church. I knew a lot of ex-Catholics attended his church, so I asked him what percentage of the congregation was formerly Catholic. Without missing a beat, he said twenty percent
why not follow the Bible and become Christian?
@kennethchidozie3317 Christian Bible - NKJV or KJV.
It doesn't have the missing verses nor the added apocrypha.
@@tony1685I don't think you quite understand the bible...
@@dylanelias6812 how so?
@@dylanelias6812 headed to church, dylanelias!
*Happy Sabbath!!!*
i pray the LORD's day is a blessing for you and yours.
tomorrow is a day too late!
Jesus is in church today - see Luke 4:16, John 15:10.
Joshua, I was raised Roman Catholic but have long been more left of center in terms of beliefs. That said, I'd like to see you do a video on Old/Independent Catholicism. I'm discerning a call to ministry in an Old Catholic jurisdiction and many people are unfortunately completely unaware that they exist.
In regards to whether Methodists or Presbyterians are closer to Catholicism, I wholeheartedly vote for the former. As you point out, Methodism is an offshoot of Anglicanism and in my experience, it tends to retain more elements of worship and denominational structure inherited from Anglicanism/Catholicism than do Presbyterians. Examples would be episcopal polity (though modified), a closer and more explicit view of the presence of Christ in Communion (at least as expressed in the Articles of Religion, although such a belief might not be held by as many Methodists as Anglicans or not emphasized as much), etc. Happy Easter!
I would definitely like to do Old Catholics. It's a common request. I am sure I will. Working on some big projects now but I hope to do it within 2022. Thanks for the inputs on the Methodist/Presbyterian question, good points!
Polish National Church. Look it up ,mostly in North Eastern Pa. Detroit and Chicago
@@ronaldbobeck1026 I know of the PNCC and definitely have more in common with it than the Roman Catholic Church, but many Old Catholics actively support/allow the ordination of women as priests, as do I. The PNCC doesn't, and that stance was one of the deciding factors in the Church's move away from the Union of Utrecht (an association of Old Catholic jurisdictions). Not all Old/Independent Catholic groups are part of it, but many are. I'd say the PNCC would be good for Joshua to mention as it is an independent Catholic tradition, and it has ties to Old Catholicism, but it's not as directly connected to Old Catholicism as it once was.
@@lightbearer972 why would you support beliefs that are 100% incompatible with the Bible like ordination of women?
@@mr.anderson2241 in regards to the Bible alone, there are a few. In the first place, I don't believe scripture to be inerrant or infallible, at least not in the sense that many evangelical Protestants do for instance. Second, most of the reasoning those against the ordination of women give from a scriptural standpoint has to do with the admonitions of Paul that women shouldn't teach or have authority over men. Those beliefs are his opinions. See for example 1 Tim 2:12, wherein Paul says that he doesn't allow women to exercise authority over men; note that it's something HE doesn't allow. If he'd written that GOD doesn't allow it, the case against ordination of women would be a lot stronger. Third, the Old Testament provides ample evidence of women being in leadership roles, such as Deborah and Miriam.
As a Catholic I see Presbyterians closer to Methodists to Catholicism, mainly because of scholasticism, a closer view on predestination, infant baptism being more of a fundamental, and greater respect for the liturgy. There should be another tier below Presbyterians for the rest of tier 4. Another solution could be moving presbyterians up to tier 3 but slightly lower than the Lutheran
i really love these videos. They are very informative. Keep it up!!
Happy Easter!!!
I like your incorporation of historical facts & traditional opinions/practises & believe that you have presented a fair & accurate assessment of how the various Christian Churches that do not identify directly as Catholic are in their relational aspects of beliefs, Cannon Law, & approach to worship. I remember feeling a sense of the Spirit of Vatican II when some Episcopal Churches in United States re-instituted the Stations of The Cross.
as a trad catholic that used to be a southern baptist seminarian i think this was very well thought out and i have no complaint.
For the most part great video, but maybe if you are making it from the perspecitve of "proximity to Catholic" you should use the term deuterocanonical instead of the somwhat loaded protestant term apocrypha. Otherwise very objective as is always the case with your high quality content!
Which church is closest to the Catholic church? The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)."
Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13?
I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Nope it's better to use loaded protestant terms.
Deuterocanonical my ass.
It's called the apocraypha.
@@Mr-pn2eh Because someone in the minority says so?
Hmmm here's my list:
1. Eastern Orthodox
2. Anglican, Nordic Lutheran, Oriental Orthodox
3. Church of the East
4. Reformed, German Lutheran, Methodist
5. Baptist, Pentecostal, Congregationalist, Anabaptist, Mennonite, Amish
6. Evangelical Free, Churches of Christ, Plymouth Brethren, Adventists
7. Unitarian, Universalist, Quaker
Very interesting thought experiment
Anglican and Nordic Lutheran should be after church of the east. Reformed should be after Methodist. Otherwise, good list.
I would put coC ahead of Baptist, maybe even Presbyterians
Yes, I find it a pretty good list. I'm Southern Baptist but I have my own views on some things. Rather, I'm silent, choosing not to argue. I don't believe other denominations "will burn in Hell." I just smile and say "we'll see." Jesus Christ was a lot more understanding than most of His followers.
The Catholic church is not the standard, the Bible is. For example, Paul wrote, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed." Catholics teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, yet Paul writes, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved (Romans 10.13)."
Now, if you are a Catholic, do not show yourself to be foolish by presenting other Bible verses that contradict Romans 10.13, as you will only be making Paul into a liar. If you do not preach the truth of Romans 10.13, of Christ Who says, "Ask and you shall receive,' then you are a false teacher with a different gospel. Instead of quoting with other Bible verses, please tell me what you will do with Romans 10.13 - even if you prove that baptism is necessary for salvation. What, then, will you do with Romans 10.13?
I write this in the hope that you will get to know Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh Please calm down before making converts to your own church. I know lots of real Christians in all of those churches. Who is not aganst Me is for Me. Christ is the centre of the church.
@@kenshiloh Most aren't preached but are preached to. The priesthood and the bishops and cardinals are the ones who are lost.
@@aliasreco Hi. Thanks for writing. I am not trying to convert people to any church. I bring glory to Christ, Who died for the sins of the world. Catholics pervert the purity of the gospel, claiming that baptism is necessary for salvation. Yet, salvation is simply an encounter with Christ. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@harrymason1053 Hi. Thanks for writing. May I ask, where will you be in eternity and how do you know? Thanks! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
This is really interesting. I was raised Catholic and have mainly encountered Protestantism (as well as Orthodoxy) at a distance, in books or online. I think once you get past Methodists I'd be pretty confused at how the service works, and anything past Anglicans I'm lost on their theology. I'd be interested to see this represented in more of a branching off model like you alluded to at the start!
If you can grasp Anglican theology, most Reformed will make reasonable sense to you, even if you don't agree.
study Scripture, It will lead to Truth!
*Happy Sabbath!!!*
The existence of Anglo-Catholics might justify ranking Anglicans on par with or even above the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches. I might also put Lutherans and Methodists on equal footing with each other. So I suppose Tiers 1-3 would comprise two tiers at most on my list, leaving room for the other groups to move up a tier.
I'm fine with the Presbyterians and non-episcopal Wesleyans being on the following tier, but I'm not sure I would draw the same lines between some of the groups with congregational polity. I'm especially skeptical of the idea that churches of Christ are closer to Catholics than Baptists are. (The Disciples of Christ would be, but not the more fundamentalist branch of the Stone-Campbell movement.) The traditional coC view of grace feels rather Pelagian compared to Baptist views, and as a result, their understanding of baptism's efficacy in salvation is drastically different in concept than that of Catholic baptismal regeneration.
Idk if I’d put Lutherans with Methodists, Methodists seem to have a much more muted use of art/iconography and are generally more like the Baptists in worship. Also Lutherans have a calendar of saints, more elaborate vestments, and a corporeal Real Presence, whereas Methodists reject canonization of saints and have a more agnostic view of the Real Presence
Lots of good thoughts, thanks for sharing your logic behind how you would arrange them!
Some "high church" Methodists worship like the typical Lutheran liturgy but no Methodist church interior looks like some Lutheran churches with crucifixes and statues. No Methodist Church would ever look like this kind of Lutheranism, for example:
ruclips.net/video/IlnbkUyvHYY/видео.html&ab_channel=Laurentiistiftelsen
The Anglicans and Episcopalians I would say the high church ones are very close to Catholicism but the major differences even within the Anglicans and Episcopalians themselves would be ordination of gay priests, women priests a major difference and of course the issue of Papal primacy...the reformed or more conservative Anglicans and Episcopalians would adhere to the male priesthood but still be separated by Papal authority, also their version of Real Presence vs Transubstantiation is different some would believe the Catholic position that the bread and wine body soul divinity changes to Christ while others view it as a symbol even within.their denomination...some came back to Catholic Church under the Anglican Ordinarite while the others remain separated...so close but no cigar...we must pray for unity.
I am an Episcopalian, former Roman Catholic. There are a number of pre-Vatican II practices which some of us retain: the altar rail would be common, saying the Eucharist facing the same direction as the congregation can be found more frequently among us.
I would say that the recent retranslation of the texts of the Mass was a very Protestant thing for the Roman Catholic Church in the US to do. It is closer to the Latin and closer to the translations in pre-Vatican II missals. The Protestantism was sacrificing poetry for adherence to a text. I guess "was made incarnate of the Virgin Mary" is closer to "incarnatus", but "born of the Virgin Mary" is better poetry. The Gloria has also changed: Catholics have leapfrogged us in approaching the Latin...I hope that your musicians are up to it.
It's a bit strange to use Pope Francis to represent traditional Catholicism, because many traditionalists would say he also is far from Catholic doctrine and practice. Many call him a heretic.
He is the Pope anyways. The one chosen by the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. And no matter what he did, there would always be people calling him a heretic.
He is the Pope. the visible sign of unity of God’s Church here on earth. The single most defining “Catholic doctrine” there is. Chosen by the Holy Spirit to be the successor of St. Peter. It doesn’t matter his personal faith or doctrinal rigor or peoples’ opinions on him. What matters is that he was chosen by the Holy Spirit. To believe otherwise is to be a Protestant.
There have been much, much, much worse Popes.
“Do not destroy him; for who can put forth his hand against the Lord's anointed, and be guiltless?”
1 Samuel 26:9
@@avantelvsitania3359por supuesto. Yo sigo al papa, y a la pachamama.
Like most Brits, I [was] a high-church Anglican. We tended to think of ourselves as 'English' Catholics rather than 'Roman' ones. At my school, we also had some R.C. kids who were not regarded as being 'the other side'.
2:40 In my youth my family had guested at both Lutheran and Episcopal (basically America's version of the Anglican church) masses when we were invited by friends. and there was literally no noticeable difference between their services and our own familiar Catholic mass. So, yeah, the answer to this one seemed pretty obvious to me.
Other churches we'd been invited to include Baptist, 7th Day Adventist, and a Franciscan Fraternity (which is basically a Catholic church run by Franciscan monks).