I really enjoy listening to Sean Luke. He does an excellent job in presenting classical Anglicanism. He is incredibly sharp in really understanding and conveying the issues at hand. May the Lord continue to bless and use him.
Hey Father James! Your channel alongside Anglican Aesthetics and New Kingdom Media make up my 3 favorite Anglican channels on RUclips rn. The three of you put out phenomenal contributions to the Protestant and Roman Catholic debate space from an Anglican perspective -- keep up the solid work! 🙌
Javier, you're a great blessing to Christendom. Thank you for your hilarious shorts, your sympathy as an interviewer, and bringing together great voices.
We got our Apostolic Succession from Gregory the Great, and we have the AV Bible, the Prayer Book 1662/1928, and the 39 Articles, so we don't have to worry what Welby or Francis are saying or doing.
This was quite eye-opening and highly-informing. As someone who has been recently describing himself as having "one foot in the Episcopal Church, and another in the official or Roman Catholic church" [though open also to United Methodism and possibly Presbyterianism], this is appreciated and helpful. I just don't think I have what it takes to be Roman Catholic [in the sense of not having cognitive dissonance and trying to actually accept and going along with everything they teach].
Wow....I never knew that about Irenaeus having said that, nor about the concept of infallible teaching being founded upon the opinions of fallible men. I have learned recently about the contradictions of Rome's claims regarding Anglican holy orders as "null and void", considering that some of the wording in earlier Roman Catholic ordinals are also without the words that they are accusing Anglicanism of. Sounds very hypocritical and contradicting of themselves [the Roman church and its magisterium and its lay apologists]. So that is also helpful for me.
I will add, though Eric Ybarra has that one view regarding us not having to pass a test, it seems he joined the wrong tradition for that view to even be tenable, since Rome declares itself to be the only one true church. I don't know if he has room to have that view in that tradition. At least according to Trent.
The Catholic Church teaches there are other churches (EO, OO, ACE), but that it is the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. Read Lumen Gentium and Dominum Jesus if you would like further details from authoritative sources.
Actually the east and the west were ONE CHURCH until the divide in 1054. Who left who? Well, in the time of Peter, he was the one charged to pastor our Lord’s Church, and where was Peter during his martyrdom? Rome.
@@atgred You can look up The Great Schism of 1054 AD sir. A Pope even foreshadowed the heresy and evil that is the dogma of papal infallibility. Pope St. Gregory the Great (6th Century): "I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others…”
Anglicans and other protestants mistakenly believe they celebrate the Lord’s Supper as God intended. No they don’t! Catholic and Orthodox only celebrate the Lord’s Supper as God intended. In John 6 Jesus Christ asked us to eat His flesh and drink His blood for compelling reasons. Later, at the Lord’s Supper, Jesus Christ showed us how to obey His request to eat and drink of Him via blessed bread and wine that has miraculously become His flesh and His blood. The 39 articles of the Church of England calls this “wicked” and “repugnant”. Please read the core relevant passages on the Lord's Supper John 6:51-56 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.” John 6:60-68 excerpts 60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” 61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? …64 But among you there are some who do not believe.”… 64 For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe…. 66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. 67 So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” Note: The disbelieving Jews clearly understood that Jesus was speaking plainly by the plainly speaking reply of “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” These disbelieving Jews refused to accept that Jesus Christ could give us His flesh and blood to eat and drink and they turned their backs on Him. Mark 14:22-24 The Institution of the Lord’s Supper 22 While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. 24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 1 Corinthians 10:15-16 - St Paul 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? 1 Corinthians 11:19 -20 & 29 - St Paul 19 Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. 20 When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper… 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. Catholic and Orthodox Pastors only have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders from a Bishop of Apostolic Succession. Therefore protestant Pastors do not have the faculty to consecrate the bread and wine to become the body and blood of Jesus Christ so they remain bread and wine. Our one true God is most gracious and wise and one should lovingly accept His divine gift because “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jesus Christ). If you want to obey God and partake of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ then be Catholic or Orthodox. God bless you
Massive strawman of the Anglican position -- which actually maintains that believers do truly partake of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist. See my other video with Sean Luke on the topic of the Lord's Supper for an explanation of the Anglican view of the Lord's Supper: ruclips.net/video/q9YnTKrKOh8/видео.htmlsi=9kS_103psju9eL6j
I on the other hand, belong to 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
44:45 Seriously erroneous argument here. It gives the impression that the pope’s indulgence is greater in effect than the Eucharist. A few points that will clear things up. 1. The efficacy of indulgences come from the merits of Christ and the saints. And the merits of the saints are God’s gifts as St. Augustine teaches. So in a sense it’s all God that is the cause of the efficacy of the indulgence. 2. The potential efficacy of the Sacrament is unlimited. It is up to God’s will how much he desires to apply it when received. 3. Nobody is guaranteed with 100% certainty that they are granted the effects of an indulgence. So to play the alleged known efficacy of the indulgence against the unknown efficacy of the Eucharist would be false.
Back in 2013, at World Youth Day, Pope Francis stated if people follow him on Twitter, they could reduce their time in Purgatory. Corruption of indulgences is still alive and kicking I see.
@@bman5257 It seems arbitrary, and voluntaristic to say that the effectiveness is up to the will of God in the manner you speak. Is his promise tied to the sign or not? It reminds me of the late scholastics (Ockham and Biel) who asserted that God was absolutely free to reward/not reward faith and faithful living because his will was completely delimited.
@@bman5257 In a system that advocates on behalf of the sacraments as an objective work "ex opere operato", it seems voluntaristic to say that for those who take the eucharist the efficacy is not certain.
Love seeing new Anglican converts.
I really enjoy listening to Sean Luke. He does an excellent job in presenting classical Anglicanism. He is incredibly sharp in really understanding and conveying the issues at hand. May the Lord continue to bless and use him.
Hey, Sean! Love your work!
Hey Father James! Your channel alongside Anglican Aesthetics and New Kingdom Media make up my 3 favorite Anglican channels on RUclips rn.
The three of you put out phenomenal contributions to the Protestant and Roman Catholic debate space from an Anglican perspective -- keep up the solid work! 🙌
@@javierperd2604 thank you for your kind words!
@@javierperd2604amen-agreed.
Confessional Lutheran here. Excellent dialogue.
LCMS member here. Great conversation.
Javier, you're a great blessing to Christendom. Thank you for your hilarious shorts, your sympathy as an interviewer, and bringing together great voices.
Thank you so much for the encouraging words -- they're greatly appreciated 🙂
Marvelous exchange, very wide ranging. I particularly appreciated the comments about marrying history and beauty. Well done, both of you.
We got our Apostolic Succession from Gregory the Great, and we have the AV Bible, the Prayer Book 1662/1928, and the 39 Articles, so we don't have to worry what Welby or Francis are saying or doing.
This was quite eye-opening and highly-informing. As someone who has been recently describing himself as having "one foot in the Episcopal Church, and another in the official or Roman Catholic church" [though open also to United Methodism and possibly Presbyterianism], this is appreciated and helpful. I just don't think I have what it takes to be Roman Catholic [in the sense of not having cognitive dissonance and trying to actually accept and going along with everything they teach].
Great interview.
Good stuff again, both of you.
I'm picking up that Perkins book for sure.
Wow....I never knew that about Irenaeus having said that, nor about the concept of infallible teaching being founded upon the opinions of fallible men. I have learned recently about the contradictions of Rome's claims regarding Anglican holy orders as "null and void", considering that some of the wording in earlier Roman Catholic ordinals are also without the words that they are accusing Anglicanism of. Sounds very hypocritical and contradicting of themselves [the Roman church and its magisterium and its lay apologists]. So that is also helpful for me.
ey chatters rise up
1:23:40 what is the upcoming synod?
I will add, though Eric Ybarra has that one view regarding us not having to pass a test, it seems he joined the wrong tradition for that view to even be tenable, since Rome declares itself to be the only one true church. I don't know if he has room to have that view in that tradition. At least according to Trent.
The Catholic Church teaches there are other churches (EO, OO, ACE), but that it is the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. Read Lumen Gentium and Dominum Jesus if you would like further details from authoritative sources.
So you chose Henry over Kefa?!?!
Eastern Orthodox Christianity predates Roman Catholicism’s heresies and the existence of Anglicanism.
Actually the east and the west were ONE CHURCH until the divide in 1054. Who left who? Well, in the time of Peter, he was the one charged to pastor our Lord’s Church, and where was Peter during his martyrdom? Rome.
@@atgred You can look up The Great Schism of 1054 AD sir. A Pope even foreshadowed the heresy and evil that is the dogma of papal infallibility. Pope St. Gregory the Great (6th Century):
"I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls
himself the universal bishop, or desires this title,
is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist,
because he thus attempts to raise himself above
the others. The error into which he falls springs
from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that
Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted
above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever
would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others…”
Anglicans and other protestants mistakenly believe they celebrate the Lord’s Supper as God intended. No they don’t! Catholic and Orthodox only celebrate the Lord’s Supper as God intended. In John 6 Jesus Christ asked us to eat His flesh and drink His blood for compelling reasons. Later, at the Lord’s Supper, Jesus Christ showed us how to obey His request to eat and drink of Him via blessed bread and wine that has miraculously become His flesh and His blood. The 39 articles of the Church of England calls this “wicked” and “repugnant”. Please read the core relevant passages on the Lord's Supper
John 6:51-56
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.”
John 6:60-68 excerpts
60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” 61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? …64 But among you there are some who do not believe.”… 64 For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe…. 66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. 67 So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”
Note: The disbelieving Jews clearly understood that Jesus was speaking plainly by the plainly speaking reply of “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” These disbelieving Jews refused to accept that Jesus Christ could give us His flesh and blood to eat and drink and they turned their backs on Him.
Mark 14:22-24 The Institution of the Lord’s Supper
22 While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.”
23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. 24 He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
1 Corinthians 10:15-16 - St Paul
15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ?
1 Corinthians 11:19 -20 & 29 - St Paul
19 Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. 20 When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper… 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.
Catholic and Orthodox Pastors only have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders from a Bishop of Apostolic Succession. Therefore protestant Pastors do not have the faculty to consecrate the bread and wine to become the body and blood of Jesus Christ so they remain bread and wine. Our one true God is most gracious and wise and one should lovingly accept His divine gift because “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jesus Christ).
If you want to obey God and partake of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ then be Catholic or Orthodox.
God bless you
Massive strawman of the Anglican position -- which actually maintains that believers do truly partake of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharist.
See my other video with Sean Luke on the topic of the Lord's Supper for an explanation of the Anglican view of the Lord's Supper: ruclips.net/video/q9YnTKrKOh8/видео.htmlsi=9kS_103psju9eL6j
I on the other hand, belong to 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
44:45 Seriously erroneous argument here. It gives the impression that the pope’s indulgence is greater in effect than the Eucharist. A few points that will clear things up.
1. The efficacy of indulgences come from the merits of Christ and the saints. And the merits of the saints are God’s gifts as St. Augustine teaches. So in a sense it’s all God that is the cause of the efficacy of the indulgence.
2. The potential efficacy of the Sacrament is unlimited. It is up to God’s will how much he desires to apply it when received.
3. Nobody is guaranteed with 100% certainty that they are granted the effects of an indulgence. So to play the alleged known efficacy of the indulgence against the unknown efficacy of the Eucharist would be false.
Back in 2013, at World Youth Day, Pope Francis stated if people follow him on Twitter, they could reduce their time in Purgatory. Corruption of indulgences is still alive and kicking I see.
muh voluntarism
@@ethanstrunk7698 I don’t follow your comment.
@@bman5257 It seems arbitrary, and voluntaristic to say that the effectiveness is up to the will of God in the manner you speak. Is his promise tied to the sign or not? It reminds me of the late scholastics (Ockham and Biel) who asserted that God was absolutely free to reward/not reward faith and faithful living because his will was completely delimited.
@@bman5257 In a system that advocates on behalf of the sacraments as an objective work "ex opere operato", it seems voluntaristic to say that for those who take the eucharist the efficacy is not certain.