Relatively a new high church Anglican here and it was also the liturgical worship that really called to my hearts desire. I fell in love with it and realized a new world and now I’m convinced that it is well pleasing to God through scripture and historically.
@@OrthodoxTitan You have yet to prove the Filioque is heresy or explain why some Orthodox affirm the Filioque maybe true. There is no universal requirement that it be stated in the Nicene Creed. The concept of the Filioque is found in the Council of Florence. The Orthodox were in union with the western church who taught the Filioque in the first millennium. So the implication is the East would of been in communion with Heretics as none of the first millennium ecumenical Councils condemn the Filioque.
Pentecostal here, i just found your channel, and im loving what im seeing .. I see such a huge push from former Protestants to Catholicism.. This Channel, along with Truth Unites and Anthony Rogers is so refreshing..
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church (These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches) If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church. If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC. (Different from the Church of Scotland) If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England (Different from the Church of England) Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations.
An honest man …” I deconstructed my faith because I wanted my sin” , EXACTLY ! Just like Jesus said “ men loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds are evil”. Our hearts are .. desperately wicked .. as the Bible says.
@CanadianAnglican they adopt the western filioque heresy added in 1054 during the great schism, And Basic history realizing the anglican church is a subranch and evolution of catholicism that departed for political issues with no guidance of the holy spirit. And no apostolic succession as the anglican church was born in the 16th century, they will claim apostolic succession but claiming and proving it is night and day. And you ? Whats keeping you away from Eastern Orthodoxy ?
This testimony resonates with me. I’m attracted to the beauty of typology, elements of the Eucharistic theology, and continuity with the Fathers. There are particular aspects of RCC dogma that I find questionable. I’ve put my drift to RCC on hold, and have been visiting an LCMS congregation. I went to a broadly evangelical seminary, and evangelicalism just isn’t tenable for me.
@wc8048 Thank you for sharing! I just said a prayer for God's guidance over your life as you continue to discern the direction you should take on your faith journey.
@@javierperd2604, I’m grateful. I found your channel recently and am very impressed with the quality of its content. While it’s anecdotal, I’ve been troubled that all of the converts to Rome I meet have thoughtful reasons for doing it. On the other hand, most of the converts who have left Rome seemed to have done so on a vibe check. These interviews have been helpful to my soul, thank you.
I loved this guest’s catholic spirit and his evident passion for the gospel and for his Anglican praxis. I may have missed it, but did he share what jurisdiction he’s in? I’m REC/ACNA. The characteristics he described are exactly what we aim to be.
@@thoughtfulchristianity I pray there will be revival in the Episcopal church, but I know that’s a hard row to plow in most places. You’re always welcome in ACNA and REC churches if you have opportunity for fellowship.
Eddie Rodriguez should have a conversation with Erick Ybarra about the Papacy-one Anglican convert to Catholicism and one Catholic convert to Anglicanism, both Hispanic, and both have researched the Papacy in history.
@b.r.holmes6365 Well, it would be the VIII, not the VII... And no, I am not troubled by the King's debauchery as the political breakaway from the Church of Rome. Though, the theological reformation of the Church of England had nothing to do with the King's 5 divorces. He actually maintained Romish practices until his death. Once he died, the Church of England was reformed from Romish practices under his children, Edward and Elizabeth. The Church of England was not founded by King Henry VIII, nor was the Church of Rome founded by Christ. The Church Universal (Catholic) was founded by Christ. The Church of Rome, which is subordinate to the Church Universal, was founded by some Apostle, though it was probably not Peter nor Paul though Peter did become its Bishop, and both suffered martyrdom there. The Church of England, which is also subordinate to the Church Universal, was founded by Augustine of Canterbury. The term founded simply means started in a mission. You could also ask a Romanist if they are okay with their temporary political leader who is also their chief theological leader... (These examples are from multiple popes, not just one) 1) Doing the Cadaver Synod? 2) Forging the Donation of Constantine? 3) Having adulterous affairs and bastard children? 4) Avowing an attack on a Christian city, Constantinople, leading to its eventual capture and subjugation by the Ottoman Empire? 5) Participating in sodomy? 6) Appointing Cardinals, Bishops, and other Ecclesial offices as political favors? The point is this: The Church Universal which sojourns in Rome has suffered from questionable leadership, politics, and theology. The Church Universal which sojourns in England also suffered from the same. The same is true with every National Church which is subordinate to the Church Universal whose head is Christ and whose vicars are the Bishops of every city. The key difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome is simple: when error arises because of human sin we accept with humility our mistake and reform. A Reform that comes from an examination of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. That in essence is Reformed Catholicism or Anglicanism. Why is it called Anglicanism? The same reason some call the Roman Church, Romanism or Papism.
But one final detail which I missed in my lengthy reply, I apologize for getting carried away with the typing, is that Church of England and and Church of Rome are National Churches...Romanism and Anglicanism are ways of carrying out the Catholic faith.
@@KnightFel Christ established one Church, do you not know the scripture? This Church has one teaching, are you not aware of the scripture. This church is Apostolic, are you not aware. The Church is Catholic, meaning universal, with the command to go out to all nations. The Church is the pillar and Bulwark of the truth, in which those who will not listen to the Church are to be treated outside of Christianity like a Gentile. Do you need the verse? The Apostles were writing to the Church, the Church made decisions binding on all Christians. The Bible was made Canon because the Church needed a standard decision what was scripture. As a Protestant, you are protesting the Church. You created your own Denominational churches based on a preachers opinion of scripture. Christ prayed this would not occur for division indicates to the world Christianity is not one. Scripture says there are to be no divisions, and we are to be perfectly joined together. In the same mind and judgement. The ability to Bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven Romans 16 17-18 indicate different Denominations have contrary doctrines even within their Denomination, thus do not serve the Lord. Ironically Protestants ignore scripture correcting them and instead say things like the Church is just simply all believers. Completely ignoring what scripture actually says.
Unfortunately without Ecclesiastical authority we end up placing ourselves as that authority and Church hopping whenever that said Church disagrees with your own interpretation of the bible.
I love the Church of England, I hope one day it returne to the Catholic Church and becomes in full communion with the Pope again. I think now more then ever it is time for re unitication of the Church to push back against a secular society that threatens all of our Christian communities. Let's keep talking Anglicans.
I enjoyed this interview. But I do disagree with his claim at the end that Anglicans are Calvinist. The formularies are not Calvinist especially article 16. The AC tends to be generally Protestant.
I assume he is referring to the formularies about predestination. I’m newly Anglican and anti-Calvinist- which led me away from reformed baptist church(es). I will say, the formularies do sound a bit Calvinist when they speak on election/predestination, but there seems to be room within the church to be nuanced.
@@briannalipham4402article 16 Is actually contrary to Calvinist view of perseverance. Article 17 never identifies the moving cause of predestination so there is wiggle room there.
He considered the Apostolic church to be one that allowed for diversity and didn't need a pontiff with absolute authority over its bishops/member churches, to him it was simply re-affirming the independence of the church in England. There is a lot we share and can talk about without trying to insult each other❤@@Joeman4627
@@Joeman4627no the midern Anglican church was founded many years after the initial split. Anglican history is nowhere near as cut and dry as papists claim.
1:15:30 One of my political science professors, Dr. Bod Eden of Hillsdale College, was an alumnus of Harvard University. This is how he described it: "Harvard is a sewer."
100% Father Jack, still I try to be as charitable as I can. I was educated in a relatively small and insignificant university in Puerto Rico, yet the wealth of knowledge acquired there can be measured up to any Ivy Leaguer out there. I saw your interview on the channel, and it was truly edifying. God bless!
This discussion demonstrates well how I often see Protestants believe they understand Catholic teaching and reject it as heresy, but in reality, they are often rejecting misunderstandings of Catholic doctrine. The talk around justification, grace, works, etc. in this video especially showed a deep misunderstanding of core ideas of the Catholic faith. Grace is everything in Catholic teaching. Absolutely everything. To this effect, the Catechism of the Catholic Church cites St. Thérèse of Lisieux: 2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace. (492; 1460) "After earth’s exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone.… In the evening of this life, **I shall appear before you with empty hands**, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux See also St. Augustine: "If, then, your good merits are God’s gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits, but as His own gifts.” -Augustine, On Grace and Free Will 6. 15. I strongly recommend any Protestants to take the time and learn more about what Catholics actually teach about justification (from Catholic sources!), because you are likely to find it is not what you think they teach. One common misconception in particular, is that Catholics are pelagians or semipelagians. They are in no way shape or form either, and have many Church documents and councils that condemn these positions. After my research, I now think the main problems with the Protestant view of justification (although there are others) can be categorized into these 4 main categories: 1. The formal cause of justification - external imputed righteousness (Lutherans) vs. internal infused sanctifying grace (Catholics). 2. Remnant sin after justification - simul justus et peccator, Lutherans say original sin remains vs. new creation and the complete abolition of original sin (Catholics). 3. The relationship between justification and sanctification - Lutheran clear distinction vs. Catholic wholistic approach (divinization/theosis) 4. The possibility of man earning merit in salvation - Lutherans no vs. Catholics yes. **I highly recommend the book "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy**. He goes into the depth on how these 4 areas are where the real disagreement has always been between Catholics and Lutherans. He looks at the historical development from the Reformation, through Trent, into the modern era. He also spends a great deal of time critiquing the 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification and showing how that document failed to address the true disagreements and instead often equivocated on important terms like "grace". Here are also some quotes from the Protestant Scholar Alister McGrath where he concludes on his major research into the history of the doctrine of justification that Luther's ideas on justification were novel to the Reformation and differed greatly from St. Augustine's ideas of infused righteousness which have always been the standard Catholic understanding of justification: "A deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification (the external act by which God declares the sinner to be righteous) and sanctification or regeneration (the internal process of renewal within man)... where none was conceded before. Justifying righteousness, or the formal cause of justification, is defined as the alien righteousness of Christ, external to man and imputed to him, rather than a righteousness which is inherent to him… It is clearly of importance to account for this new understanding of the nature of justifying righteousness, with its associated conceptual distinction between justification and sanctification. Attempts on the part of an earlier generation of Protestant apologists to defend this innovation as a recovery of the authentic teaching of Augustine, and of their Catholic opponents to demonstrate that it constituted a vestige of a discredited and ossified Ockhamism, can no longer be taken seriously. It is the task of the historian to account for this new development, which marks a complete break with the tradition up to this point." (McGrath, Allister E. 1986. lustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (1st Ed. Vol. 2). Cambridae University Press.) The point at issue is a little difficult to explain. It centers on the question of the location of justifying righteousness. Both Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. That is, for Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal; for Luther, it is external. In Augustine’s view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person. As a result, this righteousness, although originating outside the sinner, becomes part of him or her. In Luther’s view, by contrast, the righteousness in question remains outside the sinner: it is an “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena). God treats, or “reckons,” this righteousness as if it is part of the sinner’s person. In his lectures on Romans of 1515-16, Luther developed the idea of the “alien righteousness of Christ,” imputed - not imparted - to the believer by faith, as the grounds of justification. *McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 125-126* These ideas were further developed by Luther’s follower Philipp Melanchthon, resulting in an explicit statement of the doctrine now generally known as “forensic justification.” Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, “justifying righteousness” is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous.Melanchthon now drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former “justification” and the latter “sanctification” or “regeneration.” For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing. *McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127* The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon’s concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on . *McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127* In brief, then, Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process - the event of being declared to be righteous through the work of Christ and the process of being made righteous through the internal work of the Holy Spirit. Reformers such as Melanchthon and Calvin distinguished these two matters, treating the word “justification” as referring only to the event of being declared to be righteous; the accompanying process of internal renewal, which they termed “sanctification” or “regeneration,” they regarded as theologically distinct. Serious confusion thus resulted: Catholics and Protestants used the same word “justification” to mean very different things. Trent used it to mean what, according to Protestants, was both justification and sanctification. *McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 135* I now agree with with Protestant scholar Allister McGrath that Luther's idea that we are justified by faith alone through the imputation of Christ's very own righteousness (i.e. imputed righteousness) is a theological novum - a brand new idea not known to Christian thought before him. "A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum." (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186) God bless!
Thank you for sharing your views, although going point by point over them is somewhat difficult given I dislike writing essays on social media. I also thank you for the charity in your response. Clear and devoid of any personal attacks. I agree with you people should read from both sources on the issue and decide for themselves. However, I would caution that the on the ground realities are very different in any denomination (Roman, Eastern, Lutheran, Anglican et al). So besides reading the truckloads of books from either side, visit your local parish/congregation of whatever denomination you are looking at and experience it yourselves. But be fair and give the sides you are researching equal and fair opportunities. I don't wish a back a forwards over the issue. God bless!
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty Apart from me you can do nothing” - Jesus Amen! That is why grace is the very center of absolutely everything in Catholic theology. Everything is grace. "If, then, your good merits are God’s gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits, but as His own gifts.” (Augustine, On Grace and Free Will 6. 15.) "O my God, I can do all things if I am strengthened by Thy help; but without this, I can do nothing, nor shall I ever be able to do anything! If I had to confess Thee, I should miserably deny Thee; if to honor Thee by patience, I should give way to vengeance; if I had to obey Thee, I should offend Thee by disobedience. “Thou art a strong helper: when my strength shall fail, do not Thou forsake me.” (Ps. 70:7, 9). Thy saying is quite true, O my God: “Without Me you can do nothing.” (John 15:5). Not only without Thee can I never do any meritorious act of virtue whatsoever, but I cannot do anything at all; as St. Augustine instructs me: “Whether it be little or whether it be great, it cannot be done without Him without whom nothing can be done.”" **Mary da Bergamo, Cajetan. Humility of Heart. Tan Books. loc. 45** God bless!
Now I think you can lose salvation but the argument of why do good works if they aren't not the basis of God loving you is like saying why do good things for your mom and listen to her if your actions are not the basis of her love for you? If your always gonna be her son why be good? And I'm like 😮.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church (These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches) If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church. If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC. (Different from the Church of Scotland) If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England (Different from the Church of England) Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations.
If the gentleman got to the point that he felt he was "doing it all" himself rather than allowing God to transform him, then he does not understand that Catholic (or Orthodox for that matter) spiritual practices are not mechanistic, but "tools." That is, they are means, not the telos, of opening ourselves up to God's sanctifying power.
Not really a good interview. "I'm going to get to that....I can't go down that trail too far, it would take hours and hours, etc etc." I really couldn't listen to this...frustrating. Sorry.
I on the other hand am so grateful to the Holy Spirit for keeping me in the Church that Jesus Christ established on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was ever written! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@ScroopGroop I don't know how to copy and paste, but it was a nice try! No, I just present why I am so grateful to the Holy Spirit for keeping me in the Church that Jesus Christ established on Peter the rock, way before the Anglican Church began. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@ScroopGroop you must be stalking this channel if you see my manys posts! 🤔 Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink and His Church built on Peter the rock
@matthewbroderick6287 If you *actually* don't know how to copy and paste then it's wild that you take the time to write out the exact same comment, word-for-word on almost every single one of these videos on my channel, sometimes just minutes after they post. Protestant channels really live in your head rent-free, huh? 🏠
So it was not clear to me. Mr Rodrigez says he was baptist in his upbringing and then by the end he was anglican. Also said he liked the Catholic liturgy. But ar what point was him baptized and crismated in the Catholic Church to justify the title of the video? It seems like the title would bebmuch less inctufull but truthful if it was baptist converts to anglicanism. God bless you.
My father was a Catholic and Baptized me. I was confirmed and received first comunion in 2012 in the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico under the Bishop of Ponce, Felix Lazarro.
When I mean baptized me I mean baptized me in a Catholic Church. San Jose Obrero in el Barrio el Tuque of Ponce. Any more personal details I find are rather unnecessary to the narrative. If you disagree it's fine but calling me disingenuous because I didn't embark on such details is rather uncharitable.
Left the 2000 thousand years church fouded by Our Lord Jesus Chsrt "mat 16:18" for the church founded by a lustful and tyranical king who wanted to divorce his wife, hahaha no one would do that and the comments make it clear.
let met get this straight, anglicanism is false because one of its leaders was lustful and used the church to legitimize his own sins *cough* rodrigo borgia *cough*
@@InitialPC Wouldn't the difference be that the Anglican church's founder, not "one of its leaders", founded the entire church because of his lust? Rather than one of many leaders being a sinner?
@@bigfootapologetics are you denying the apostolic lineage? is the pope not the successor of peter and hold the same authority therein? does it matter that rodrigo borgia is not peter himself? never seemed to matter anywhere else in catholic history
@@InitialPC Of course I'm not denying it. Peter himself denied the Lord three times. Surely, his successors will be imperfect. The only people who seem to think popes are supposed to be infallible and sinless are Protestants. The key difference is that the institution of Anglicanism was at least partly founded by a king in rebellion to Christ's Church in order to satisfy his own lustful ends. The Catholic Church was not.
@@bigfootapologetics so the popes sins have no bearing on catholicism but king henrys sins have tainted anglicanism? how convenient also, what does the pope do if he has no authority? did peter only symbolically have the keys to the kingdom? or is the pope only fallible when it comes to things you dont like?
If the crux of the issue is liturgy, there is nothing in Anglicanism that isn't present in yhr Anglican Ordinariate, while still retaining communion with the Catholic Church
So I haven’t watched this video but it strikes me as a ridiculous on it’s face for someone who’s part of the universal “Catholic” Church to leave it for Anglicanism if the Church of England is not what he was brought up in. It’s the particularity and the nationality that makes it simply farcical. It sounds like this: “Yeah I gave up a Church with thousands of years of Holy Tradition, an apostolic lineage, and universal jurisdiction in accordance with biblical promises and the teaching of the Church Fathers because I found out the one, true faith is the Scandinavian Orthodox Church for Scandinavians” Come home, brother!
Thank you for at least admitting up front that you *didn't even watch the video* before commenting. You should probably do that before trying to critique someone's reasoning behind their conversion. Also, Eddie didn't "give up a Church with thousands of years of Holy Tradition, an apostolic lineage, and universal jurisdiction in accordance with biblical promises and the teaching of the Church Fathers." He's still a part of that one, Holy, catholic Church -- just without all the accretions. And the Anglican Church doesn't just exist in England and it's not just a Church for English people. From what I understand, today, it's actually believed that the largest concentration of confessional, conservative Anglicans actually exists in Africa.
@@javierperd2604 Your comment does nothing to address the deficiencies I mentioned. I did not say that only Englishmen are part of the Church of England, but obviously it’s a Church that is tied to the English identity. How many non-English speakers make up the CofE? How prevalent is it outside the Commonwealth or countries that broke from the Commonwealth? It is not universal, so it is not catholic. It doesn’t uphold the teachings the Church Father witness to. At the end of the day, no Anglican can honestly deny that their church does not belong to an apostolic communion. The error is obvious from the root. It’s a communion founded by divorce and the sword, used to persecute Christians and sever the connection the church of England had to apostolic communion.
@@javierperd2604 "He's still a part of that one, Holy, catholic Church -- just without all the accretions." That is not true, I say with respect. The Anglicans do not have full and complete apostolic succession by its proper and historic definition, and by the laying on of hands as Catholics do.
Relatively a new high church Anglican here and it was also the liturgical worship that really called to my hearts desire. I fell in love with it and realized a new world and now I’m convinced that it is well pleasing to God through scripture and historically.
The anglican church accepts the filioque catholic heresy added in 1054.
Come back to the only true apostolic church the Orthodox Church
@@OrthodoxTitanthen there are Orthodox who become Catholic because they read in the early church Councils the Orthodox accepted the Filioque.
@@dan_m7774 your church history knowledge is flawed. Thoughts on Nostra aetate and vatican 2 ?
@@OrthodoxTitan You have yet to prove the Filioque is heresy or explain why some Orthodox affirm the Filioque maybe true. There is no universal requirement that it be stated in the Nicene Creed. The concept of the Filioque is found in the Council of Florence. The Orthodox were in union with the western church who taught the Filioque in the first millennium. So the implication is the East would of been in communion with Heretics as none of the first millennium ecumenical Councils condemn the Filioque.
@@OrthodoxTitanthe Eastern Orthodox fathers all affirmed the filioque, watch dwongs video on the topic
Pentecostal here, i just found your channel, and im loving what im seeing ..
I see such a huge push from former Protestants to Catholicism.. This Channel, along with Truth Unites and Anthony Rogers is so refreshing..
love what you're doing with this channel
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church
(These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches)
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC.
(Different from the Church of Scotland)
If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England
(Different from the Church of England)
Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations.
An honest man …” I deconstructed my faith because I wanted my sin” , EXACTLY ! Just like Jesus said “ men loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds are evil”. Our hearts are .. desperately wicked .. as the Bible says.
New to Anglicanism myself.
Come to the true apostolic church founded by Jesus Christ
The eastern Orthodox church
Free from any western heresies and corruption
@@OrthodoxTitan I’m good. I’ll stick with the Anglican Church.
@@BramptonAnglican Why not consider eastern orthodoxy whats keeping you away from it?
@@OrthodoxTitan what’s keeping you from the Anglican Church?
@CanadianAnglican they adopt the western filioque heresy added in 1054 during the great schism, And Basic history realizing the anglican church is a subranch and evolution of catholicism that departed for political issues with no guidance of the holy spirit. And no apostolic succession as the anglican church was born in the 16th century, they will claim apostolic succession but claiming and proving it is night and day.
And you ? Whats keeping you away from Eastern Orthodoxy ?
This testimony resonates with me. I’m attracted to the beauty of typology, elements of the Eucharistic theology, and continuity with the Fathers. There are particular aspects of RCC dogma that I find questionable. I’ve put my drift to RCC on hold, and have been visiting an LCMS congregation.
I went to a broadly evangelical seminary, and evangelicalism just isn’t tenable for me.
@wc8048 Thank you for sharing! I just said a prayer for God's guidance over your life as you continue to discern the direction you should take on your faith journey.
@@javierperd2604, I’m grateful. I found your channel recently and am very impressed with the quality of its content. While it’s anecdotal, I’ve been troubled that all of the converts to Rome I meet have thoughtful reasons for doing it. On the other hand, most of the converts who have left Rome seemed to have done so on a vibe check. These interviews have been helpful to my soul, thank you.
I loved this guest’s catholic spirit and his evident passion for the gospel and for his Anglican praxis. I may have missed it, but did he share what jurisdiction he’s in? I’m REC/ACNA. The characteristics he described are exactly what we aim to be.
Currently trying to reform the Episcopal Church from within, if to no avail, I would be REC.
Also, thank you for your kind words!!!
@@thoughtfulchristianity I pray there will be revival in the Episcopal church, but I know that’s a hard row to plow in most places. You’re always welcome in ACNA and REC churches if you have opportunity for fellowship.
@@smccarthymi thank you 😀
Eddie Rodriguez should have a conversation with Erick Ybarra about the Papacy-one Anglican convert to Catholicism and one Catholic convert to Anglicanism, both Hispanic, and both have researched the Papacy in history.
One day, maybe. I would like to publish a work on the subject first before engaging him 😀
@thoughtfulchristianity are you troubled by the "King Hernry VII divorce" foundation of the Church of England?
@b.r.holmes6365 Well, it would be the VIII, not the VII...
And no, I am not troubled by the King's debauchery as the political breakaway from the Church of Rome. Though, the theological reformation of the Church of England had nothing to do with the King's 5 divorces. He actually maintained Romish practices until his death. Once he died, the Church of England was reformed from Romish practices under his children, Edward and Elizabeth.
The Church of England was not founded by King Henry VIII, nor was the Church of Rome founded by Christ. The Church Universal (Catholic) was founded by Christ. The Church of Rome, which is subordinate to the Church Universal, was founded by some Apostle, though it was probably not Peter nor Paul though Peter did become its Bishop, and both suffered martyrdom there. The Church of England, which is also subordinate to the Church Universal, was founded by Augustine of Canterbury. The term founded simply means started in a mission.
You could also ask a Romanist if they are okay with their temporary political leader who is also their chief theological leader...
(These examples are from multiple popes, not just one)
1) Doing the Cadaver Synod?
2) Forging the Donation of Constantine?
3) Having adulterous affairs and bastard children?
4) Avowing an attack on a Christian city, Constantinople, leading to its eventual capture and subjugation by the Ottoman Empire?
5) Participating in sodomy?
6) Appointing Cardinals, Bishops, and other Ecclesial offices as political favors?
The point is this:
The Church Universal which sojourns in Rome has suffered from questionable leadership, politics, and theology. The Church Universal which sojourns in England also suffered from the same. The same is true with every National Church which is subordinate to the Church Universal whose head is Christ and whose vicars are the Bishops of every city. The key difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome is simple: when error arises because of human sin we accept with humility our mistake and reform. A Reform that comes from an examination of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience.
That in essence is Reformed Catholicism or Anglicanism. Why is it called Anglicanism? The same reason some call the Roman Church, Romanism or Papism.
But one final detail which I missed in my lengthy reply, I apologize for getting carried away with the typing, is that Church of England and and Church of Rome are National Churches...Romanism and Anglicanism are ways of carrying out the Catholic faith.
@@thoughtfulchristianityAn excellent response! My only disagreement with you that you say AC is Calvinist. We are generally Protestant.
I love Anglican from Catholic more biblical
Irony since Scripture indicates Christ started the Catholic Church and a king of England started Anglican.
@@dan_m7774 Where do the scriptures say that Jesus Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church?
@@KnightFel Christ established one Church, do you not know the scripture? This Church has one teaching, are you not aware of the scripture. This church is Apostolic, are you not aware. The Church is Catholic, meaning universal, with the command to go out to all nations. The Church is the pillar and Bulwark of the truth, in which those who will not listen to the Church are to be treated outside of Christianity like a Gentile. Do you need the verse? The Apostles were writing to the Church, the Church made decisions binding on all Christians. The Bible was made Canon because the Church needed a standard decision what was scripture. As a Protestant, you are protesting the Church. You created your own Denominational churches based on a preachers opinion of scripture. Christ prayed this would not occur for division indicates to the world Christianity is not one.
Scripture says there are to be no divisions, and we are to be perfectly joined together. In the same mind and judgement. The ability to Bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven
Romans 16 17-18 indicate different Denominations have contrary doctrines even within their Denomination, thus do not serve the Lord. Ironically Protestants ignore scripture correcting them and instead say things like the Church is just simply all believers.
Completely ignoring what scripture actually says.
1:39 Yes! Ive jumped from faith to faith. Too much ecclesial anxiety. Ugh!
Unfortunately without Ecclesiastical authority we end up placing ourselves as that authority and Church hopping whenever that said Church disagrees with your own interpretation of the bible.
Bombastic side eye
I love the Church of England, I hope one day it returne to the Catholic Church and becomes in full communion with the Pope again. I think now more then ever it is time for re unitication of the Church to push back against a secular society that threatens all of our Christian communities. Let's keep talking Anglicans.
I enjoyed this interview. But I do disagree with his claim at the end that Anglicans are Calvinist. The formularies are not Calvinist especially article 16. The AC tends to be generally Protestant.
What?
I assume he is referring to the formularies about predestination. I’m newly Anglican and anti-Calvinist- which led me away from reformed baptist church(es). I will say, the formularies do sound a bit Calvinist when they speak on election/predestination, but there seems to be room within the church to be nuanced.
@@briannalipham4402article 16
Is actually contrary to Calvinist view of perseverance. Article 17 never identifies the moving cause of predestination so there is wiggle room there.
I wonder how the Anglican Church was founded 🧐
The King died Catholic. Please, if you must criticize, at least do so honestly.
@@ScroopGroop so he started his own church because he wanted a divorce to marry a mistress he would later kill
He considered the Apostolic church to be one that allowed for diversity and didn't need a pontiff with absolute authority over its bishops/member churches, to him it was simply re-affirming the independence of the church in England. There is a lot we share and can talk about without trying to insult each other❤@@Joeman4627
@@Joeman4627no the midern Anglican church was founded many years after the initial split. Anglican history is nowhere near as cut and dry as papists claim.
@@webz3589 doesn’t matter that is how the Anglican Church was founded
How can anyone become anglican knowing that it was just a henry 8th vanity project?
1:15:30
One of my political science professors, Dr. Bod Eden of Hillsdale College, was an alumnus of Harvard University. This is how he described it: "Harvard is a sewer."
100% Father Jack, still I try to be as charitable as I can. I was educated in a relatively small and insignificant university in Puerto Rico, yet the wealth of knowledge acquired there can be measured up to any Ivy Leaguer out there.
I saw your interview on the channel, and it was truly edifying. God bless!
@@thoughtfulchristianity Likewise! Keep up the good work, brother.
There are other issues with WLC; social trinitarianism, monothelitism…
This discussion demonstrates well how I often see Protestants believe they understand Catholic teaching and reject it as heresy, but in reality, they are often rejecting misunderstandings of Catholic doctrine. The talk around justification, grace, works, etc. in this video especially showed a deep misunderstanding of core ideas of the Catholic faith. Grace is everything in Catholic teaching. Absolutely everything.
To this effect, the Catechism of the Catholic Church cites St. Thérèse of Lisieux:
2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace. (492; 1460)
"After earth’s exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone.… In the evening of this life, **I shall appear before you with empty hands**, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself."
- St. Thérèse of Lisieux
See also St. Augustine:
"If, then, your good merits are God’s gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits, but as His own gifts.”
-Augustine, On Grace and Free Will 6. 15.
I strongly recommend any Protestants to take the time and learn more about what Catholics actually teach about justification (from Catholic sources!), because you are likely to find it is not what you think they teach. One common misconception in particular, is that Catholics are pelagians or semipelagians. They are in no way shape or form either, and have many Church documents and councils that condemn these positions.
After my research, I now think the main problems with the Protestant view of justification (although there are others) can be categorized into these 4 main categories:
1. The formal cause of justification - external imputed righteousness (Lutherans) vs. internal infused sanctifying grace (Catholics).
2. Remnant sin after justification - simul justus et peccator, Lutherans say original sin remains vs. new creation and the complete abolition of original sin (Catholics).
3. The relationship between justification and sanctification - Lutheran clear distinction vs. Catholic wholistic approach (divinization/theosis)
4. The possibility of man earning merit in salvation - Lutherans no vs. Catholics yes.
**I highly recommend the book "Engrafted into Christ" by Dr. Christopher Malloy**. He goes into the depth on how these 4 areas are where the real disagreement has always been between Catholics and Lutherans. He looks at the historical development from the Reformation, through Trent, into the modern era. He also spends a great deal of time critiquing the 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification and showing how that document failed to address the true disagreements and instead often equivocated on important terms like "grace".
Here are also some quotes from the Protestant Scholar Alister McGrath where he concludes on his major research into the history of the doctrine of justification that Luther's ideas on justification were novel to the Reformation and differed greatly from St. Augustine's ideas of infused righteousness which have always been the standard Catholic understanding of justification:
"A deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification (the external act by which God declares the sinner to be righteous) and sanctification or regeneration (the internal process of renewal within man)... where none was conceded before. Justifying righteousness, or the formal cause of justification, is defined as the alien righteousness of Christ, external to man and imputed to him, rather than a righteousness which is inherent to him… It is clearly of importance to account for this new understanding of the nature of justifying righteousness, with its associated conceptual distinction between justification and sanctification. Attempts on the part of an earlier generation of Protestant apologists to defend this innovation as a recovery of the authentic teaching of Augustine, and of their Catholic opponents to demonstrate that it constituted a vestige of a discredited and ossified Ockhamism, can no longer be taken seriously. It is the task of the historian to account for this new development, which marks a complete break with the tradition up to this point."
(McGrath, Allister E. 1986. lustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (1st Ed. Vol. 2). Cambridae University Press.)
The point at issue is a little difficult to explain. It centers on the question of the location of justifying righteousness. Both Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. That is, for Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal; for Luther, it is external.
In Augustine’s view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person. As a result, this righteousness, although originating outside the sinner, becomes part of him or her. In Luther’s view, by contrast, the righteousness in question remains outside the sinner: it is an “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena). God treats, or “reckons,” this righteousness as if it is part of the sinner’s person. In his lectures on Romans of 1515-16, Luther developed the idea of the “alien righteousness of Christ,” imputed - not imparted - to the believer by faith, as the grounds of justification.
*McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 125-126*
These ideas were further developed by Luther’s follower Philipp Melanchthon, resulting in an explicit statement of the doctrine now generally known as “forensic justification.” Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, “justifying righteousness” is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous.Melanchthon now drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former “justification” and the latter “sanctification” or “regeneration.” For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing.
*McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127*
The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon’s concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on .
*McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 127*
In brief, then, Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process - the event of being declared to be righteous through the work of Christ and the process of being made righteous through the internal work of the Holy Spirit. Reformers such as Melanchthon and Calvin distinguished these two matters, treating the word “justification” as referring only to the event of being declared to be righteous; the accompanying process of internal renewal, which they termed “sanctification” or “regeneration,” they regarded as theologically distinct.
Serious confusion thus resulted: Catholics and Protestants used the same word “justification” to mean very different things. Trent used it to mean what, according to Protestants, was both justification and sanctification.
*McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 4th ed. p 135*
I now agree with with Protestant scholar Allister McGrath that Luther's idea that we are justified by faith alone through the imputation of Christ's very own righteousness (i.e. imputed righteousness) is a theological novum - a brand new idea not known to Christian thought before him.
"A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification [as imputation] must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum." (Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. Pg. 186)
God bless!
Thank you for sharing your views, although going point by point over them is somewhat difficult given I dislike writing essays on social media.
I also thank you for the charity in your response. Clear and devoid of any personal attacks.
I agree with you people should read from both sources on the issue and decide for themselves.
However, I would caution that the on the ground realities are very different in any denomination (Roman, Eastern, Lutheran, Anglican et al). So besides reading the truckloads of books from either side, visit your local parish/congregation of whatever denomination you are looking at and experience it yourselves. But be fair and give the sides you are researching equal and fair opportunities.
I don't wish a back a forwards over the issue.
God bless!
lol. “Apart from me you can do nothing” - Jesus
He who knew no sin because sin - Paul
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty Apart from me you can do nothing” - Jesus
Amen! That is why grace is the very center of absolutely everything in Catholic theology. Everything is grace.
"If, then, your good merits are God’s gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits, but as His own gifts.” (Augustine, On Grace and Free Will 6. 15.)
"O my God, I can do all things if I am strengthened by Thy help; but without this, I can do nothing, nor shall I ever be able to do anything! If I had to confess Thee, I should miserably deny Thee; if to honor Thee by patience, I should give way to vengeance; if I had to obey Thee, I should offend Thee by disobedience. “Thou art a strong helper: when my strength shall fail, do not Thou forsake me.” (Ps. 70:7, 9). Thy saying is quite true, O my God: “Without Me you can do nothing.” (John 15:5). Not only without Thee can I never do any meritorious act of virtue whatsoever, but I cannot do anything at all; as St. Augustine instructs me: “Whether it be little or whether it be great, it cannot be done without Him without whom nothing can be done.”"
**Mary da Bergamo, Cajetan. Humility of Heart. Tan Books. loc. 45**
God bless!
Now I think you can lose salvation but the argument of why do good works if they aren't not the basis of God loving you is like saying why do good things for your mom and listen to her if your actions are not the basis of her love for you? If your always gonna be her son why be good? And I'm like 😮.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church
(These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches)
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC.
(Different from the Church of Scotland)
If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England
(Different from the Church of England)
Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations.
@@GirolamoZanchi_is_cool:
Or, simply go to the original Church that Our Lord Jesus established in the year 33AD.
If the gentleman got to the point that he felt he was "doing it all" himself rather than allowing God to transform him, then he does not understand that Catholic (or Orthodox for that matter) spiritual practices are not mechanistic, but "tools." That is, they are means, not the telos, of opening ourselves up to God's sanctifying power.
Not really a good interview. "I'm going to get to that....I can't go down that trail too far, it would take hours and hours, etc etc." I really couldn't listen to this...frustrating. Sorry.
I on the other hand am so grateful to the Holy Spirit for keeping me in the Church that Jesus Christ established on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was ever written! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Do you just stalk this channel to copy and paste this on each one?
@@ScroopGroopHe does this on every Protestant channel lol
@ScroopGroop I don't know how to copy and paste, but it was a nice try! No, I just present why I am so grateful to the Holy Spirit for keeping me in the Church that Jesus Christ established on Peter the rock, way before the Anglican Church began. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@ScroopGroop you must be stalking this channel if you see my manys posts! 🤔 Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink and His Church built on Peter the rock
@matthewbroderick6287 If you *actually* don't know how to copy and paste then it's wild that you take the time to write out the exact same comment, word-for-word on almost every single one of these videos on my channel, sometimes just minutes after they post.
Protestant channels really live in your head rent-free, huh? 🏠
So it was not clear to me. Mr Rodrigez says he was baptist in his upbringing and then by the end he was anglican. Also said he liked the Catholic liturgy. But ar what point was him baptized and crismated in the Catholic Church to justify the title of the video?
It seems like the title would bebmuch less inctufull but truthful if it was baptist converts to anglicanism. God bless you.
My father was a Catholic and Baptized me.
I was confirmed and received first comunion in 2012 in the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico under the Bishop of Ponce, Felix Lazarro.
When I mean baptized me I mean baptized me in a Catholic Church. San Jose Obrero in el Barrio el Tuque of Ponce.
Any more personal details I find are rather unnecessary to the narrative. If you disagree it's fine but calling me disingenuous because I didn't embark on such details is rather uncharitable.
@@thoughtfulchristianity God bless you.
@@CesarScursame to you brother
Left the 2000 thousand years church fouded by Our Lord Jesus Chsrt "mat 16:18" for the church founded by a lustful and tyranical king who wanted to divorce his wife, hahaha no one would do that and the comments make it clear.
let met get this straight, anglicanism is false because one of its leaders was lustful and used the church to legitimize his own sins
*cough* rodrigo borgia *cough*
@@InitialPC Wouldn't the difference be that the Anglican church's founder, not "one of its leaders", founded the entire church because of his lust? Rather than one of many leaders being a sinner?
@@bigfootapologetics are you denying the apostolic lineage?
is the pope not the successor of peter and hold the same authority therein?
does it matter that rodrigo borgia is not peter himself? never seemed to matter anywhere else in catholic history
@@InitialPC Of course I'm not denying it. Peter himself denied the Lord three times. Surely, his successors will be imperfect. The only people who seem to think popes are supposed to be infallible and sinless are Protestants.
The key difference is that the institution of Anglicanism was at least partly founded by a king in rebellion to Christ's Church in order to satisfy his own lustful ends. The Catholic Church was not.
@@bigfootapologetics so the popes sins have no bearing on catholicism but king henrys sins have tainted anglicanism?
how convenient
also, what does the pope do if he has no authority? did peter only symbolically have the keys to the kingdom? or is the pope only fallible when it comes to things you dont like?
If the crux of the issue is liturgy, there is nothing in Anglicanism that isn't present in yhr Anglican Ordinariate, while still retaining communion with the Catholic Church
So I haven’t watched this video but it strikes me as a ridiculous on it’s face for someone who’s part of the universal “Catholic” Church to leave it for Anglicanism if the Church of England is not what he was brought up in. It’s the particularity and the nationality that makes it simply farcical. It sounds like this: “Yeah I gave up a Church with thousands of years of Holy Tradition, an apostolic lineage, and universal jurisdiction in accordance with biblical promises and the teaching of the Church Fathers because I found out the one, true faith is the Scandinavian Orthodox Church for Scandinavians” Come home, brother!
Thank you for at least admitting up front that you *didn't even watch the video* before commenting. You should probably do that before trying to critique someone's reasoning behind their conversion.
Also, Eddie didn't "give up a Church with thousands of years of Holy Tradition, an apostolic lineage, and universal jurisdiction in accordance with biblical promises and the teaching of the Church Fathers." He's still a part of that one, Holy, catholic Church -- just without all the accretions. And the Anglican Church doesn't just exist in England and it's not just a Church for English people. From what I understand, today, it's actually believed that the largest concentration of confessional, conservative Anglicans actually exists in Africa.
@@javierperd2604 Your comment does nothing to address the deficiencies I mentioned. I did not say that only Englishmen are part of the Church of England, but obviously it’s a Church that is tied to the English identity. How many non-English speakers make up the CofE? How prevalent is it outside the Commonwealth or countries that broke from the Commonwealth? It is not universal, so it is not catholic. It doesn’t uphold the teachings the Church Father witness to. At the end of the day, no Anglican can honestly deny that their church does not belong to an apostolic communion. The error is obvious from the root. It’s a communion founded by divorce and the sword, used to persecute Christians and sever the connection the church of England had to apostolic communion.
Anglicanism and the Church of England are not synonymous
@@javierperd2604 "He's still a part of that one, Holy, catholic Church -- just without all the accretions." That is not true, I say with respect. The Anglicans do not have full and complete apostolic succession by its proper and historic definition, and by the laying on of hands as Catholics do.
@@MrTeaSPoon12Why would there be a Bishop of Constantinople? Why would there be a Bishop of Antioch?