Why I Left Roman Catholicism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 июл 2024
- Deacon Drew Harrah explains his time in the Roman Catholic Church and then why he left it.
Faith of Our Fathers exists to promote the historic Christian faith through theological and spiritual reflection on the Bible and the Great Tradition of the Church.
Deacon Drew Harrah (MA in Classical Theology, Talbot School of Theology, MA in History, California State University, Fullerton) is currently serving a curacy at Christ Anglican Church in Carefree, AZ, a parish of the Anglican Province of Christ the King under the oversight of Bishop Peter Hansen of the Diocese of the Western States.
FOLLOW:
X: x.com/discipulusjesu
00:00 - Introduction
03:19 - The Francis Pontificate
15:46 - Rupture in the Magisterium
28:30 - Ecclesiology
43:02 - Conclusion
![Sean Rii, Karyon, Sharzkii - Taungule [My Love] (Official Music Video)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eJoMuypbSzQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Correction re: 45:26: my third son, born just a few days ago on June 28, is not yet baptized.
Congratulations. God bless.
Hi mate have you looked into the problems with Sola Scriptura and how alleged contrictions in dogma and doctrine are reconcilable. Like the patrick madrid vs James white sola scriptudebate ruclips.net/video/n6A1aniRaUs/видео.htmlsi=Oxhd124eBn68ZNb7
I think this video is even clearer but this is a great debate abt it too ruclips.net/video/LlLlzDBHhhA/видео.htmlsi=eXaAaOSM0iFs36qr for the reconciling stuff I reckon Catholic answers or their apologists mentioned definitely have great stuff to address wht you mentioned.
Lets pray we get to the truth.
I’d love to chat with you about your journey on my channel, if you’re up for it. I don’t see contact info in your about section, but my email is in mine, if you’re up for it. In any case, thanks for sharing your story in these videos!
DO IT. EXPAND THE CIRCLES.
Thanks for the offer, Austin. Give me some time to settle in with the newborn, and then maybe we can work something out. God bless
Sweet! Hope this happens! 😁
Dont waisr your time on gospel simplicity. @@dcndrew_faithofourfathers
What a refreshing pair of videos these were! Thank you for your charitable, clear, and concise contribution to the online discussion on these topics.
Not sure what other plans you have for this space, but I am looking forward to hearing more from you.
Well brother, hopefully he comes home to Orthodoxy.
@@marcokite watch his previous video "Why I left Eastern Orthodoxy"
Fascinating. I’m currently attending a confessional Lutheran seminary and have dealt with many of the same thoughts about Rome. I’ve always appreciated what the Anglicans have brought to the table, and I’d love to see some talking between our two communities! Blessings on your ministry, brother.
Thank you for this video, brother.
Denzinger does not say that the whole Exsurge Domine document is infaillible. That is not how it works...
That's my understanding as well. Denzinger only provides that Exsurge Domine is a notable document in the history of the Church. It does not state that it is an infallible teaching.
Another excellent video! I appreciated the section on ecclesiology especially. I hadn't thought about the similarities between Vatican II ecclesiology and classical Protestant branch theory before.
Very helpful. Thanks
I’ve been looking forward to this presentation. Thank you so much for sharing your experience.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us here on your spiritual journey! Your pastoral advice especially in your Orthodoxy video is very wise and helpful. Just one question: after your experience in both the RCC and Orthodoxy, why specifically did you go Anglican? Why not, for example, go to the Old Catholics through the Polish National Catholic Church, or an evangelical Catholic (not antinomian Lutheran) group? Just curious since I went from Pentecostalism to Old Catholicism, and Anglican Catholicism was an option I could’ve taken, but ultimately chose not to take
I had been in the orbit of St. Matthew's (ACC) in Newport Beach, CA for years. It made sense for me to connect there. Pentecostalism to Old Catholicism is pretty unique! Maybe send me an email and share a little bit more about that, because I find that interesting. My in-laws are Pentecostals
Great video. While my family and I are visiting the RCC, I appreciate your genuine journey for the truth. I don't get upset at people for having different opinions. Christianity is a tough thing to sort out in the times we live in. Hope the best for you and your family.
Thanks for this, Eric. Absolutely it is a tough thing to sort out. God bless you and yours.
Thanks for making these videos. It’s encouraging to me since I was in both of these churches too and have landed in continuing Anglicanism. I’m grateful for my past and the incredible saints and lessons along the way. In all honesty I’m still putting things together. I likely will not get everything perfectly figured out, and that’s okay.
Amazing. Send me an email when you have a moment, please. I'd like to connect.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers will do!
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers I’ll call your church office, otherwise not sure how to get ahold of you. I’m trying to use twitter but can’t figure out how to direct message.
Great video. God willing the ACNA/Gafcon churches and the continuing churches will move closer to one another in the future. Feels like things are (however slowly) heading that way.
From your lips to God's ears
Good video. (Audio channels seem messed up, louder in left ear than right. Might wanna check into that.)
Yes, thanks for this. I'll work on fixing that.
Thank you, Deacon. This resonated with my experience of wrestling with the claims of Rome, seeing the merit of many of them, and ultimately feeling that I couldn't adopt the system in its entirety because of the extravagance of its claims. I also find myself appreciating your synthesis of Catholic belief with robust Biblical literacy. Perhaps one of these days you could do a video describing your reasons for accepting the practice of invoking the saints? I find this to be an issue that I go back and forth on, and would love to hear how you approach it.
You have my prayers for your RUclips ministry and (the Lord willing) your soon-to-be priestly ministry.
Thanks, Mark. I will likely tackle that in a future video. Difficult subject.
Excellent presentation, thank you so much!
You’re welcome!
The Catholic Church is not for cowards. The greatest evils are fought here. Judas could be sitting next to you and yet, this is the Church that sustains the world, by the mercy of God.
If you want to fight for God, this is it.
This is very very good - thank you for the Huge bit of explanation. I've been wrestling with family over the Roman Catholic Church as well as a dear friend. And I've also been curious about the Orthodox Church. I'm watching your video on Orthodoxy next! But currently sitting here as an Anglican and it's been great! Thank you for all your info.
This was immensely respectful! Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences. I am a Lutheran currently investigating Rome. I do find that there are good answers to the points you raise though, however, I don't want to dismiss your points either - these are serious issues and they need to be worked through diligently if one is to be serious about the Catholic claims.
God bless you
May God give you wisdom and peace in your decision.
Let me refute some of the issues that were brought up by Deacon Drew Harrah in his RUclips video:
1. Disorientation During Francis’s Pontificate:
Early in Francis’s pontificate, in July 2013, the infamous “Who am I to judge?” statement was made, causing confusion and disorientation. This statement became a recurring theme during my Catholic experience, making it challenging to interpret the Holy Father charitably over time.
Misuse of the "Who am I to judge?" Statement:
Refutation: The statement "Who am I to judge?" was taken out of context by the media. Pope Francis was addressing a specific question about a person’s sexual orientation and emphasizing the need for pastoral care and love, not a change in Church teaching.
Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Fallacy - Misrepresenting the Pope’s statement to suggest a change in doctrine.
2. The Pachamama Affair:
In October 2019, during the Amazon Synod, a ceremony in the Vatican Gardens involved statues of indigenous pregnant women, which some perceived as idolatry. This event was deeply offensive and scandalous to me and many faithful Catholics, including Cardinal Müller, the former prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Misunderstanding of the Pachamama Event:
Refutation: The Pachamama statues were not idols but symbols of life and fertility in indigenous cultures. The Pope did not condone idolatry but participated in an interreligious dialogue event.
Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Emotion - Using emotionally charged language to provoke a reaction without context.
3. Issues with the Magisterium:
The term magisterium refers to the teaching office of the Church. The Catholic Church distinguishes between the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium. I found the issue of the magisterium subtle and sometimes unclear.
Misinterpretation of Papal Infallibility:
Refutation: Papal infallibility applies only in specific instances when the Pope defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church. This has occurred rarely.
Logical Fallacies: Non Sequitur - Assuming frequent infallible statements without evidence.
4. The Case of Exsurge Domine:
One instance often cited is the papal bull Exsurge Domine issued by Pope Leo X against Martin Luther, which condemned certain propositions. Some believe this fulfills the conditions for papal infallibility.
Misunderstanding of Historical Context:
Refutation: The condemnation of certain propositions during the Reformation was specific to that historical context and not a blanket endorsement of burning heretics.
Logical Fallacies: False Dichotomy - Presenting historical practices as incompatible with contemporary teachings.
5. Changes in the Death Penalty Teaching:
In 2017, Pope Francis called for a change to the catechism on the death penalty, declaring it inadmissible. This seemed to contradict past teachings.
Understanding Doctrinal Development:
Refutation: The Church’s teaching on the death penalty has developed, recognizing the dignity of human life and changing social circumstances.
Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Fallacy - Misrepresenting doctrinal development as contradiction.
6. Issues with the Council of Florence:
Pope Eugene IV’s papal bull Cantate Domino from the Council of Florence made stark pronouncements on non-Catholics’ salvation, which seems at odds with Vatican II’s teachings.
Contextual Understanding:
Refutation: Vatican II emphasized the possibility of salvation outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, consistent with the Church’s understanding of God’s mercy and grace.
Logical Fallacies: False Dichotomy - Presenting pre-Vatican II and Vatican II teachings as mutually exclusive.
7. Ecclesiology and Vatican II:
The Second Vatican Council’s documents Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio use a framework acknowledging the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church but also includes other Christian communities.
Nuanced Understanding of Ecclesiology:
Refutation: Vatican II’s teachings reflect a deeper understanding of the Church’s unity and inclusivity, consistent with early Church Fathers’ views on schism and unity.
Logical Fallacies: Non Sequitur - Concluding that Vatican II’s teachings represent a break from tradition without considering the continuity.
8. Personal Conclusion:
I concluded that the Roman Catholic Church’s magisterium had changed its teaching, and it was not divinely protected as it claims. Since Vatican II, its ecclesiology has been Protestantized.
Final Thoughts:
Refutation: The Catholic Church maintains doctrinal continuity while allowing for legitimate development. Vatican II’s ecclesiology enriches the understanding of Church unity and mission.
Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Emotion, Straw Man Fallacy, False Dichotomy - Misrepresenting the Church’s teachings and using emotionally charged language to provoke a reaction.
Thanks.
Francis "blessed" the pachamama idols and thus was endorsing the idolatery which is apostasy from the Catholic faith and thus he is not the Pope. Sedevacantism.
@@TheRomanCatholicChurch no, this was not pachamama, but our lady. You must be a complete idiot to belive that our pope would have any interest in blessing or consenting to a goddess of the amaon jungle. Literally no modern person believes in such idols - why on earth would our pope do so?
@@TheRomanCatholicChurch To refute your false statement "Francis 'blessed' the pachamama idols and thus was endorsing the idolatry which is apostasy from the Catholic faith and thus he is not the Pope. Sedevacantism," we need to address both the factual inaccuracies and the theological misconceptions in the argument.
A. Refutation of False Statements:
1. Misinterpretation of the Event:
Event Context: The "Pachamama" statues were part of a display during the Amazon Synod held at the Vatican in October 2019. They were brought by indigenous representatives as a symbol of fertility and connection to the earth. The presence of these statues was intended to represent cultural respect and dialogue rather than an endorsement of idolatry.
Pope Francis' Actions: Pope Francis did not "bless" these statues in a manner that could be construed as endorsing idol worship. His involvement was part of broader efforts to engage with indigenous cultures and address issues pertinent to the Amazon region, such as environmental protection and social justice.
2. Theological Misunderstandings:
Catholic Doctrine on Idolatry: The Catholic Church firmly teaches that worship is due to God alone (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2112-2114). Veneration or respect for cultural symbols does not equate to worship. The Church distinguishes between recognizing cultural symbols and engaging in idolatry.
Role of the Pope: The Pope’s role includes fostering dialogue and understanding among different cultures and religions. This does not mean he endorses or adopts non-Christian religious practices. His actions are often misinterpreted when viewed outside the context of promoting dialogue and peace.
3. Addressing Sedevacantism:
Definition of Sedevacantism: Sedevacantism is the belief that the current occupant of the Papal See is not a valid Pope due to perceived heresy or apostasy. This position is not supported by mainstream Catholic theology or practice.
Authority of the Pope: The legitimacy of the Pope is recognized through the established processes of the Catholic Church, including the conclave of cardinals. Disagreements or misunderstandings about specific actions do not invalidate his papacy.
B. Logical Fallacies in Your Argument:
1. Straw Man Fallacy:
Your argument misrepresents Pope Francis' actions, suggesting that he endorsed idol worship, which he did not. This misrepresentation is then attacked to argue against his legitimacy as Pope.
2. Hasty Generalization:
Drawing a conclusion about Pope Francis' entire papacy based on a single event involving cultural symbols is an overgeneralization. It fails to consider the broader context of his actions and teachings.
3. False Dichotomy:
Your argument presents a false dichotomy: either Pope Francis endorses idol worship, or he is not the Pope. This ignores other possibilities, such as cultural misunderstanding or misinterpretation of his actions.
Conclusion:
Your argument that Pope Francis' interaction with the Pachamama statues constitutes apostasy and invalidates his papacy is based on a misinterpretation of the event and a misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church's teachings on idolatry remain clear, and the role of the Pope includes fostering intercultural dialogue without compromising core doctrinal beliefs. The claim of sedevacantism based on this event is unsupported by Catholic theology and logical reasoning.
@@mortensimonsen1645 You're welcome.
29:17 : This statement is wrong. These encyclicals do NOT say that the sacraments are not maintained in their integrity (i. e. valid) in the Greek Orthodox Church.
Are you still in Newport Deacon? I would love to visit.
Not anymore, Ethan. I'm in the North Phoenix area. But I do visit SoCal occasionally, so maybe send me an email when you have a moment and we'll connect.
Thank you for sharing your fascinating & inspiring journey!
I would like to to thank you for sharing thoughts and experiences which can inspire me to reflect.
My initial thought is of some concern (and desire for me to understand better in charity) of a very real, earthly, and human seeking for where we fit in best; and the ways in which it can (I can't honestly say that it *does*) interfere with our obedience to God (via Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium).
I find it natural for people to try to figure out "what works for them". But I never necessarily know where is the fine line that separates "thy will be done" from "my will be done".
For myself, I find that most of the "work" in practicing the Faith is in not putting pre-eminent importance on my own viewpoints and opinions; and instead asking myself if that inspiration/thought/opinion is coming from the Spirit or if it's coming from me and my own humanity.
Ordinariate Catholic here so.i guess you're in my "sister church" . Well I'm sorry to see you go, but I get it. I really do. St Peter's Barque is being tempest toss't in the current day.
May God bless your family, your ministry, and soon your priesthood.
Looking forward to a vid on why you specifically chose to join a church in the Anglican Way.
Thanks for the gracious response. Hope your Ordinariate experience has been enriching.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers it has been. It was where I discovered Anglo Catholicism
@dcndrew_faithofourfathers, thank you for sharing your conversion story. As a fellow convert, but to Catholicism, I found it particularly interesting to hear about an intellectual journey in the opposite direction. Your willingness to engage thoughtfully with faith is admirable.
I did want to offer some reflections on a few points you raised. In general, I'd recommend taking a look at Chapter 9 of Lawrence Feingold's book, "Faith Comes from What is Heard." He delves into the complexities of interpreting Church history and doctrine.
Here are two specific areas where I felt your reasoning could be strengthened:
Moral Prescriptions and Heresy: You highlighted changes in the Church's approach to heresy, particularly regarding punishment. It's important to distinguish between the unchanging moral principle - that heresy is wrong - and the prudential application of that principle, which can vary throughout history. While the Church's methods for addressing heresy may have evolved, the underlying condemnation of heresy has not. It's akin to the death penalty: society's views on capital punishment can shift, but the moral principle that life is sacred remains constant.
Papal Authority and Historical Application: You applied Catholic principles to specific historical events, but I wasn't convinced that the Magisterium (the Church's teaching authority) would necessarily interpret those events in the same way. For instance, papal encyclicals (which are not infallible) often require a nuanced understanding and may not be directly applicable to every historical situation. Lawrence Feingold's book offers insights into the different levels of assent we give to various Church teachings. It might be helpful to consider whether you're interpreting historical events through a lens that aligns with the Church's own understanding.
I hope this feedback is helpful. It's a complex topic, and I appreciate your willingness to explore it openly.
It would be great to hear a video now on why you chose Anglicanism. I’m a big fan of English reformation history and it would be great to hear your take on Anglicanism in general.
I used to be Anglican, now happily Orthodox. I can assure you that Anglicanism dilutes, dilutes, dilutes the Faith.
@marcokite that depends on the version. Those that bless sin cannot claim to be Christian churches
agreed. i know very little about it.
A church started by adultery.
Thank you. I have been on a very long journey. I am an Anglican priest. Your videos were helpful.
God bless your ministry, Father.
where ,do you think the "Anglican patrimony "came from?
Really enjoyed this discussion! Thanks for sharing!
Discussion?This is a stream.if consciousness monologue ... This is by the book faith, which is why he suffers
Thanks for this Deacon. This was instructive for me as I was unfamiliar with these particular inconsistencies of the various Vatican statements and doctrinal development in the history of Catholicism. I still have great respect and admiration for the Catholic church, it's intellectual heritage, and in general support much of Catholic theology and Social Teaching.
One thing I would ask you to reconsider is this term triumphalism. I think we can be both humble and triumphalist, and in fact we should be to prevent either a collapse into relativism one one side, or a naive syncretism on the other. Consider a strongly-held belief you have, if you were to tell me that you simultaneously believe it to be true, but don't actually think it is any better or truer than (some) other mutually exclusive beliefs, then I would question your willingness in seeking truth. Why would one not adopt what they believe to be the best or true? It is one thing to say you believe something to be true, but could be wrong or mistaken, and yet another to say other beliefs (and analogously, other denominations) are equal or superior. In epistemological terms, we are justified in holding to the Truth of our beliefs over against other incompatible ones, but that does not in reality make them true. We may be wrong, and thus we remain ready to revise them in light of counter-evidence.
I think we should be triumphalist in saying Anglicanism is the best (superior) and truest representation or expression of the Christian faith, and further that Christianity is the best (superior) religion, until experience shows us otherwise. I'm not saying you don't already believe this, I'm only making the argument that we should be proudly triumphalist in this sense, but not exclusivist. Best does not equal only.
A good book that touches on this subject is Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus by Nicholas Rescher, who was, funnily enough, a Catholic. God bless.
Thank you, Tony. I tend to think of humility and triumphalism as opposed to one another, but I'll have to give it more thought. Perhaps we can talk about it in person sometime.
Semper Fi Deacon. Which Regiment? 1/6th Marine. God Bless Fr Mark Brown
Semper Fi, Father. If I recall, we met briefly at the Joint Synods last fall? Good to hear from you again. 5/14th Marines. Artillery.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers we did meet. you gave me your number and I have failed to follow up.
Re St Gregory of Narek, there has been theological discussion and reflection between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian communions recently. And the language used by miaphysites and monophysites has been discussed. To a certain degree in my mind, this is almost akin to how Protestants and Catholics use language when it comes to justification. We're both fundamentally expressing the same thing but the language differs and at times we are talking past each other.
‘Faith of our Fathers’ was written by a Catholic convert priest- Fr Frederick Faber.
Next Up:
•Why I Left My Goatee
•Why I Left My Graduation Ceremony
•Why I Left California
•Why I Left the Right
•Why I Left RUclips (The Grand Finale)
😂😂😂 sorry, couldn’t help it 🤭
It is a nice goatee tho
yep, why I left moment, understandable. Lots of misunderstanding on the magisterium and confusion on the distinctions of the dogma and the doctrine, lack of nuances. yep I left, too much to learn, yep I hope you find what your heart desires out there. maybe you go public to mislead the average and confuse Catholics or maybe a protestant, or other but not for any informed Catholics to leave the Holy Eucharist, the Confession, the sacraments is a biggest mistake one could ever made in life . Or maybe you wanted to make money on RUclips, who knows.
laughable,
Deacon Drew Harrah (MA in Classical Theology, Talbot School of Theology, MA in History, California State University, Fullerton) all these showing authority (of University degrees) means nothing, as St. Paul Said "I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,..." so stop showing authority (of University degrees).
good luck.
Lol good one
Wow! The statements that you quoted, and my having drawn the same conclusions that you drew, are a few of the very things that stopped me from becoming Catholic not too long ago. I saw both that those outside of Catholicism cannot be saved according to ex cathedra statements of certain popes and the issues that this creates given modern ex cathedra statements of popes. I also have serious misgivings about removing people from the church for not holding to lesser dogmas, such as the Marian dogmas. I really can't be part of the one, true, holy, apostolic, Catholic Church if I don't believe that Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven? Would Jesus desire that members of his body be separated from fellowship, let alone anathematized, for not believing such a thing? I somehow, deeply, doubt that such is the case.
As a comment that I posted last year to someone says:
"The following is part of the ex cathedra, and therefore infallible and authoritative, pronouncement of Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence about the middle of the 15th century.
"It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church."
--Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Section 11, Paragraph 14.
Again, ex cathedra, and therefore infallible and authoritative, pronouncement of Pope Boniface VIII in the papal encyclical, Unam Sanctam.
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
--Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Paragraph 4"
With all the statements brought up that are of concern, I don't see how anyone can avoid the conclusions that you draw.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation", means, if put in positive terms, that "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body", and it "is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church"
At the same time, it adds: "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men"
The Catechism also states that the Catholic Church "is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter", and that "those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways"
In its statements regarding this doctrine, the Church expressly teaches that "it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God", and that "outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control". It also states that "they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life"
Feeneyism is a Christian doctrine, associated with Leonard Feeney, which advocates an interpretation of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the Church there is no salvation") which is that only Catholics can go to heaven and that only those baptised with water can go to heaven. Feeneyism opposes the doctrines of baptism of desire and baptism of blood as well as the view that non-Catholics can go to heaven.
Feeneyism is considered a heresy by the Catholic Church; some Catholics refer to Feeneyism as the Boston heresy.
Quick search and you will find the answers, i really dont understand why some people dont have a problem when bible is not striclty interpreted but when tradition is not strictly interpreted than it is wrong really weard double standard.
@@sebastiankaczmarek635 You are just cherry picking phrases out of it to deal with, rather than the whole. And, I know that it has been decided that what these popes declared ex cathedra is wrong, that's the problem we are pointing to.
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
--Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Paragraph 4
No getting around it. If you say that the pope was wrong here, when speaking ex cathedra, then the RCC claim about ex cathedra pronouncements is false. If you say that it was correct, then the RCC claim about ex cathedra pronouncements is, likewise, false. In the former case it's about past ex cathedra prounouncements, and in the latter it's about modern ones. Either way, the claim is false. Did you watch the video? The point being brought up is an internal contradiction in Roman Catholic claims. Pointing to the bits that make the claims contradictory does nothing to overturn their contradictory nature.
Anyone know any solid Anglican churches in CT?
Working through Denzingers Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum and I’ve come away with a variable view from that of the OP. Post and Pre Conciliar analysis have and are still being discussed and debated. Papal declaration Absolutizing is a whole sport in of itself. As a Catholic I mostly enjoy those critics of the Protestant flavor the most even though I found this presentation lovely. Deacon seems like the Ortland to James White of Anglican apologia. ❤️
This channel is a blessing to me. I wrestled with Catholicism and EO and found valuable things in them. But this video and your last video on EO resonated deeply with me. I remain Protestant and love my local gathering.
I hope you and he come home to Holy Orthodoxy
@@marcokite I’m already home my friend. Thank you for your heart here though
I found you I think on your first video. my journey was very similar. Mine took place in the mid to late 80s and into the 90s. Have struggled within the Orthodox context for many years. And I have left worship and contact with many of my Orthodox brothers and sisters. I am currently listening to your post about leaving the Catholic Church. I find I have nowhere to go dash where am I to go? A little earlier context for me is that I was a Jesus freak back in the late and early seventies. I find myself wanting to be back there TimeWise and just embraced by the whole Jesus movement minus the extreme charismatic aspect of it. Anyway my question remains where am I to go?
I'm Catholic so I obviously would want you to be Catholic but I would say read books.
From the early church fathers to modern authorship. And obviously pray for guidance.
May the Lord bless you and guide you to the truth!
I am an excatholic now baptist kind of meeting the Lord through the Jesus Revolution movement as well (an spanish late version of it). Haven´t you thought in the Calvary Chapel movement?.
@@josenestorgutierrez3795 I'm sorry brother but I'm not sure what you said
@@francouafrancis4838 I understand your statement. I am 'on-my-own', nowhere to turn as far as I can see. I was part of the Jesus Movement, attended Bible College became Orthodox in the mid to late 80's - been around for a bit. My question stands as it does because I find that I have nowhere to go.
Rick, thanks for sharing. I cannot tell you where to go. You will have to discern that in prayer and study. I know it's tough, but God is good. Proverbs 3:5-6.
Where did you get your icons from?
Legacy Icons
Brother,
I am looking into Anglicanism, what books would you recommend I start with?
The Catholic Religion- Vernon Staley
Confessions- St. Augustine
On the Incarnation-Charles Gore
Anglican Catholicism -Unchanging Faith in A Changing World -Fr. Jonathan Munn
Good places to start. God bless.
Rock and Sand by Josiah Trenham
Deep Anglicanism
Here are several books that I've found to be helpful: Deep Anglicanism by Gerald McDermott, The Catholic Religion by Vernon Staley, An Outline of an Anglican Life by Louis Tarsitano, and Anglican Catholic Faith and Practice by Mark Haverland.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers thank you for responding brother. Do you have time to talk on the phone about a few things? I have a few questions and need some advice. I also live in Arizona.
Brother, thanks for sharing your story and your thoughtful reflections. I found both your lectures on Orthodoxy and Catholicism very interesting and edifying. I am a Byzantine Catholic (though with Latin Catholic family and experience in the church) and I totally get where you're coming from. I also hear you on the liturgial wasteland your encountered in CA. I admit to feeling deeply embarrassed by some of the awful liturgies (and ugly churches) you often find, especially in Southern CA. That more than anything is what bothers me about Catholicism. I often wonder how the Church of Christ could produce such a banal liturgy and tolerate it?
Do you pray the Dominican rosary?
Congratulations on the latest addition to your family! I came to some of the same conclusions you did, but they do not inspire me to leave the church. Perhaps because I do come from a culturally Catholic family, however negligent in their practice (Spanish dad & French mom) Catholic churches feel like home. To many incoming protestants get hung up on papal authority. So many more Catholics just role their eyes, and follow their conscience. It's not the pope's church. It's ours too. But I do miss the Book of Common Prayer and the Anglican/Episcopalian hymnal. God bless you on your way sir!
Thanks for the gracious response. May God bless and keep you.
@dcndrew_faithofourfathers Hi Deacon! While I sympathize with you with the frustrations and disillusionment with Catholicism and Pope Francis. However, to be fair, when it comes to persecution, there needs to be an honest acknowledgment that it has happened on both sides as Roman Catholics have had their fair share of being persecuted in England under the Elizabethan rule. As someone who grew up with anti-catholicism, there are caricatures and demonizations of Roman Catholicism that aren't true. Please don't misunderstand me I’m not trying to make light of the persecution of protestants under Roman Catholicism. However, on the other hand, the persecution of Catholics under protestants shouldn’t be made light of either. In order to have fruitful and productive dialogues, there must be a sorrowful acknowledgment of sin and wrongdoings on both sides and humbly ask for forgiveness. As Gandhi pointed out “You can’t shake hands with a clenched fist."
Thank you for this. You are right about that. A sad time. The difference, it seems to me, is that for Protestants it is not infallible teaching that the burning of heretics is the will of the Spirit.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers Not infaillible teaching. May I suggest that you read what Fr. Brian Harrison wrote about this in « Torture and corporeal punishment as a problem in catholic theology », Living Tradition, 119, sept. 2005
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers See also Scott Eric Alt, « A reader asks about Exsurge Domine and burning heretics », To Give a Defense, August 31st 2019
The hymn, "Faith of Our Fathers", was, ironically, written by a Roman Catholic priest named Frederick Faber in 1849. It was written in commemoration of the lives of the English Catholic martyrs who had been persecuted by the English King Henry VIII. Henry VIII founded the Anglican Church of England in rebellion against the Roman Catholic prohibition against divorce.
I'm aware of this. The irony is not lost on me. It's still a good hymn, and it's in our hymnal. It's kind of like how Martin Luther's "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God" is sung in Catholic parishes.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. Many are asking about your reasons for joining the Anglicans, and I have a simialar request. If you make a video on that topic, I'd appreciate it if you could explain how the diversity of opinion on dogma is acceptable. I have heard Anglo-Catholic priests say they do not affirm that ecumenical councils are infallible, some reject praying to the saints, some have stated that they do not accept the 7th council as truly ecumenical. I have great trouble considering Anglicanism while there is no consensus on dogma, and whatever is common to all Anglicans is not common to the other apostolic bodies. Thanks
I plan to try and tackle this in the future.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers Thank you.
We Catholics respect you and wish you blessings whatever set of beliefs you settle on. We will always be here when and if you decide to return.
Why would he go back to a Church that has very long History of Corruption and ROTTEN "FRUIT"?
Moreover, not the least of which is the RAPE AND SEXUALLY ASSAULTS OF 330,000 Children( and counting) as the Vatican unsuccessfully tried to cover it up...until they got caught! 😮
We Orthodox respect him and wish him blessings whatever set of beliefs he settles on. We will always be here when and if he decides to return.
Glad to have you as a fellow Anglican Catholic.
Are you familiar with Fr. Timothy Matkin?
I've watched a number of his videos, yes. I enjoy his content.
Fantastic video! You really should do more apologetics along these lines to counter the myth of an unchanging magisterium put forward by pop apologists on RUclips.
Just a heads up, Audio is panned a bit too far left
I was gonna say this haha. My head feels lopsided after listening to this in my headphones. This video should be called "Why I Left Audio Channel" ;) hehe jk love you Drew! Try to output mono instead of stereo for videos like this! :)
Yeah, I noticed it too. Sorry about that. I'll work on fixing it.
@@randalldeeb I may reach out to you at some point for some technical help!
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers Super easy, I'll show you!
Very systematic and without caricatures. I like it.
So did Leo say it was or was not the will of the Spirit to burn heritics?
Why I Left Roman Catholicism
Part Nine - When did the Pope become the Antichrist and Which Pope was the first Antichrist? (Epilogue)
1. According to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church: "A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the 'Gelasian Decree' because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent."
[Cross, F. L.; Livingstone, E. A., eds. (2005-01-01). "canon of Scripture". The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 282. doi:10.1093/acref/9780192802903.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3.]
2. Pope Damasus I's Old Testament canon violated Thomas Cranmer's Article 6 because it included as inspired "And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine."
3. One of those books in Pope Damasus I's Old Testament canon included this passage from 2 Maccabees 12:38-45:
38 So Judas gathered his host, and came into the city of Odollam, And when the seventh day came, they purified themselves, as the custom was, and kept the sabbath in the same place.
39 And upon the day following, as the use had been, Judas and his company came to take up the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen in their fathers' graves.
40 Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain.
41 All men therefore praising the Lord, the righteous Judge, who had opened the things that were hid,
42 Betook themselves unto prayer, and besought him that the sin committed might wholly be put out of remembrance. Besides, that noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain.
43 And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:
44 For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.
45 And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
[King James Bible Online Org /2-Maccabees-Chapter-12/]
4. Establishing Roman doctrine on this passage would include Purgatory, praying for the dead and offering sacrifice for the dead. These would be violations of Thomas Cranmer's Article 22 - Of Purgatory and Article 31's "Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits."
5. "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi" (Let the law of worship fix the law of belief). Thomas Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer with its 39 Articles of Religion was specifically composed to exclude in its communion service any Romish notion of (A) transubstantiation, (B) the minister as a sacrificing priest and (C) the mass as a corporeal sacrificial offering of Jesus Christ upon the altar for the living and the dead.
6. To conclude the Epilogue on the upbeat, the following is a quotation from British historian Michael Davies' book Cranmer's Godly Order:
"Cranmer's greatest achievement was the composition of the liturgical books imposed during the reign of Edward VI, which, from a literary standpoint, constitute a work of genius. The Book of Common Prayer, in particular, ranks with the works of Shakespeare and the King James Bible among the highest pinnacles of English literature."
[Davies, Michael. Cranmer's Godly Order (Roman Catholic Books: Ft. Collins, Colorado, USA, 1995) p. 320]
Anglicans read the Apocrypha "for example of life and instruction of manners." You'll find that some Anglicans do believe in a version of purgatory--most famously CS Lewis.
Besides believing in Purgatory, C.S. Lewis also prayed for the dead:
1. Three years before his death, C.S. Lewis revised Mere Christianity in 1960 by presenting his belief in a purification after death.
As if God was the author of his words, C.S. Lewis writes:
“Make no mistake,” He says, “if you let me, I will make you perfect. The moment you put yourself in My hands, that is what you are in for. Nothing less, or other, than that. You have free will, and if you choose, you can push Me away. But if you do not push Me away, understand that I am going to see this job through. Whatever suffering it may cost you in your earthly life, WHATEVER INCONCEIVABLE PURIFICATION IT MAY COST YOU AFTER DEATH, whatever it costs Me, I will never rest, nor let you rest, until you are literally perfect - until My Father can say without reservation that He is well pleased with you, as He said He was well pleased with me. This I can do and will do. But I will not do anything less.”
[Mere Christianity, New York: Macmillan, 1960, p. 172]
2. In his book Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly On Prayer that was published posthumously in 1964 one year after his death, C.S. Lewis makes explicit his (A) belief in purgatory and (B) praying for the dead that came in response to the loss of loved ones:
"OF COURSE I PRAY FOR THE DEAD. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter me. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden. At our age the majority of those we love best are dead. What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best were unmentionable to Him? . . ."
"I BELIEVE IN PURGATORY. Mind you, the Reformers had good reasons for throwing doubt on “the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory” as that Romish doctrine had then become. . . ."
"The right view returns magnificently in Newman’s Dream. There, if I remember it rightly, the saved soul, at the very foot of the throne, begs to be taken away and cleansed. It cannot bear for a moment longer 'With its darkness to affront that light.' Religion has reclaimed Purgatory."
(Quoting Wikipedia: The Dream of Gerontius is an 1865 poem written by John Henry Newman consisting of the prayer of a dying man, and angelic and demonic responses. The poem, written after Newman's conversion from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism, explores his new Catholic-held beliefs of the journey from death through Purgatory, thence to Paradise, and to God ... Newman was canonized on 13 October 2019, by Pope Francis, in St. Peter's Square. The ceremony was attended by Charles III, then-Prince of Wales, representing the United Kingdom.)
"Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy'? Should we not reply, 'With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleaned first.' 'It may hurt, you know' - 'Even so, sir.'"
"I assume that the process of purification will normally involve suffering. Partly from tradition; partly because most real good that has been done me in this life has involved it. . . ."
"My favorite image on this matter comes from the dentist’s chair. I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am 'coming round,' a voice will say, 'Rinse your mouth out with this.' This will be Purgatory. The rinsing may take longer than I can now imagine. The taste of this may be more fiery and astringent than my present sensibility could endure."
[Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1964, 107-109]
3. As an Anglican author and apologist, C.S. Lewis was circumspect in keeping his belief in Purgatory and praying for the dead hidden from the public while he lived. In this he selectively applied Thomas Cranmer's Article 6 pertaining to those Apocryphal books "for example of life and instruction of manners" where these practices are presented in 2 Maccabees 12. However, he refrained from questioning/violating the 'Romish doctrine' of Cranmer's Article 31 that stated "Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits."
4. Would C.S Lewis have quoted John Henry Newman's The Dream of Gerontius as one justification for his belief in Purgatory, had he known that Newman later would be canonized a Catholic saint?
In the document Dominus Iesus from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, published on August 6, 2000, under the direction of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), this document states
"54 By the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council wished to proclaim two doctrinal affirmations: on the one hand, that despite divisions among Christians, the Church of Christ continues to exist in fullness in the Catholic Church alone; on the other, "that numerous elements of sanctification and truth subsist outside its structures",55 that is, in the Churches and ecclesial Communities not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But it must be affirmed of the latter that their "strength derives from the fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church".57
17. There is, therefore, a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.58 Churches which, although not in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, nevertheless remain united to it by very close bonds such as apostolic succession and the valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Consequently, the Church of Christ is present and active in these Churches, despite the absence of full communion with the Catholic Church, caused by their non-acceptance of the Catholic doctrine of Primacy, which the Bishop of Rome objectively possesses and exercises over the whole Church in accordance with the divine will.60
It’s funny because you don’t hear this very often, as you’ve prefaced in the beginning of your video. What’s crazy is how much malice and vitriol each side has for the other once they leave their respective denominations/ churches. However, you’ve seem to taken all the good with you from these prior experiences considering how highly you speak of these respective experiences. This simple gesture that you’ve presented alone gives credence to your journey. Don’t let the “next you’ll convert to deconstruction/ non denomination etc.” comments because if you would’ve gone the exact opposite way from Protestant to Orthodox to Catholic, these same people would be praising you. I appreciate your perspective. Great video!
Thanks for the encouragement.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers no problem. Looking forward to the video going over why you became Anglican
Christ be with you brother.
You're right to quote Gasser, but you should quote him more :
“The word ‘defines’ signifies that the pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that he or she knows for certain that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff.”
This means that, in order for him to define a doctrine to be held by the universal Church, the pope must express himself in such a way that the faithful can know with certitude that he holds a particular proposition to have a particular doctrinal note (‘de fide‘, certain, false, proximate to heresy, heretical, et cetera). The faithful are then required to regard it likewise. If the faithful *cannot* know from what the pope says that a particular proposition is to be regarded in a particular way, then the pope has not defined the matter for the universal Church and thus has not spoken infallibly.
During the course of Church history, there have been many occasions where a person has committed not just a single heresy, but a whole raft of theological errors. In such cases, the Church has sometimes responded by censuring a list of propositions found in the person’s writings. Sometimes this is done by condemning the propositions one by one, “the proper qualifications being attached to each individually (‘in individuo‘).” However, “in the case of . . . Luther . . . to a whole series of propositions a whole series of censures was attached generally (‘in globo‘). . . . To each of the propositions thus condemned apply one, or several, or all of the censures employed-the task of fitting each censure to each propositions being left to theologians.”
If we examine Exsurge Domine’s condemnation of Luther’s propositions, it is clear that they are being condemned ‘in globo‘ rather than ‘in individuo‘. Pope Leo X wrote, “All and each of the preceding articles or errors, so to speak, as set before you, we condemn, disapprove, and entirely reject as respectively [1] heretical or [2] scandalous or [3] false or [4] offensive to pious ears or [5] seductive of simple minds and [6] in opposition to Catholic truth.” The pontiff lists six different censures, but he doesn’t tell us which of these apply to which of the forty-one propositions.
When we look at the Latin text of the sentence, this ambiguity is even more obvious. The various censures the pope names-from “heretical” to “offensive to pious ears”-are all joined by the conjunction ‘aut‘ . In ecclesiastical Latin, the word ‘aut‘ tends to have the sense of an exclusive “or”-i.e., it’s this *or* that, not both. This makes it a slam-dunk that we cannot determine the kind of censure being applied to the individual propositions.
We can’t even infer that the pontiff’s mind was that all of the propositions are false. The censures “heretical” and “false” both imply falsity, but “scandalous,” “offensive to pious ears,” and “seductive of simple minds” do not.
Heresy is a term reserved for falsehoods that contradict points that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. The more general term ‘false‘ is used to refer to erroneous propositions more generally (i.e., ones that do not have to be believed with divine and Catholic faith). But the next three named censures do not imply error. In fact, they may even presuppose the truth of a position.
‘Scandalous‘ means “likely to cause scandal,” but that does not automatically mean false. Sometimes things that are true lead to scandals. ‘Offensive to pious ears‘ means “phrased in an offensive manner” or “phrased in a manner repugnant to Catholic sensibilities.” But again, that doesn’t automatically mean false. (In fact, this censure tends to be applied to propositions that are basically true but badly expressed.) ‘Seductive of simple minds means‘ “likely to be understood in a way that would lead the uneducated or inattentive to believe an error.” This also does not mean automatically false.
We can speculate which censure might be applied to the proposition that using the death penalty for heresy is contrary to the will of the Spirit (a view Luther himself later repudiated). It seems to me that this proposition in that age would have been scandalous. Many people would have pointed to the examples in Scripture cited above and would have been scandalized by the proposition that it is ‘never‘ God’s will to use capital punishment for doctrinal matters.
However, we cannot infer from the pope’s statement that the proposition is anything more than scandalous. It could also be deserving of one or more of the other censures, but we can’t infer from what the pope said if that were true or which would be the case. Indeed, from what the pope said alone we can’t be sure that ‘scandalous‘ is what was in mind for that proposition.
Because we can’t *know* that, Exsurge Domine does not infallibly define the theological status of this proposition or the others that it treats, meaning that it cannot be used to attack the doctrine of papal infallibility. Anybody who is trying to do so needs to better understand papal infallibility, learn to parse ecclesiastical documents more carefully, or become aware of the meaning of theological censures.
Do you believe in sola fide? It doesn't seem to have been a factor at all in your conversion to Protestantism, given the silence on the topic in this video?
Even the pope said that the catholic church and luther agree on justification. So this is not a dealbreaker
@@Swaggychristian official Roman Catholic dogma anathematized justification by faith alone in every conceivable way at the Council of Trent. It is definitely a deal breaker.
@@gianthebaptist Ok.
Yeah, as Swaggy said, Catholics and Protestants both believe in Sola Fide in the sense of Fides Formata but, except for a small group of Protestants, both reject Sola Fide in the sense of Fides Informis. Modern Catholic popes have agreed with this.
@@Real_LiamOBryan No they don't. This is revisionist history. There are entire works from the post-reformation era by various Reformed and Lutheran theologians, such as Martin Chemnitz, explicitly rejecting the doctrine of justification espoused by Trent as utterly heretical and blasphemous.
Statements made by Popes who aren't even Roman Catholic in the historical sense, and who are likely universalists anyway (Francis) do not change Rome's official dogma.
As far as I know, the Anglican Church adheres to the Calvinistic doctrine of double predestination. Has it become a problem for you to move to this Church?
The Anglican Church, like the Catholic Church per the outcome of the De Auxiliis Controversy, permits a spectrum of views on the relationship between divine grace and human freedom. Dominicans have historically held views on predestination that do not seem to me to be essentially different from moderate Calvinist views. But most Anglican clergy are probably not Calvinists, and those who may be (I don't know any personally), are certainly moderate ones.
The Anglican Church has never affirmed double predestination because it is unbiblical. The Scottish Church amended its Articles to include double predestination and limited atonement. Both articles were rejected by the Anglican Church as well as the Episcopal Church in America upon ratification of its prayer book and acceptance of the Anglican formularies, which again does not include limited atonement or double predestination.
About Cantate Domino, the important word is "remain". You cannot be saved if you commit the formal sin of heresy, i. e. you were catholic and you willingly leave the Church.
Praise God for faithful Protestants in this hour.
Is Catholic moral theology proof the rcc is unbiblical? I mean: sanctification seems to be intertwined with justification. So a Catholic by a sin can undo justification in Christ and is not able to receive communion in
The Eucharist without blasfemia.
The choice of the term "subsists" rather than "is" in the sentence "It must be firmly believed that the Church, one, holy, catholic and apostolic, instituted by Christ the Lord, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him" is an important theological point.
### 1. **Concept of “subsists”** The term "subsiste" (from the Latin *subsistit in*) is used to indicate that the Church of Christ continues to exist fully and authentically in the Catholic Church. This implies that all the essential characteristics and means of salvation that Christ wanted for his Church are found in the Catholic Church.
### 2. **Difference with "is"** If the Council had used the term "is", it might have suggested a strict and total exclusivity, denying any presence of truths or means of sanctification outside the Catholic Church. By using "subsists", the Council recognizes that although the Church of Christ has its full realization in the Catholic Church, elements of that Church may also be present outside its visible structures.
### 3. **Ecumenical Openness** The use of “subsists” allows for a more open and ecumenical approach. It recognizes that other Christian communities, although imperfect and separated from full communion with the Catholic Church, possess elements of sanctification and truth. This recognition allows us to respect and dialogue with these communities in a spirit of Christian unity, without denying important doctrinal differences.
### 4. **Theological Interpretations** -
**Fullness of the Means of Salvation**:
The Catholic Church has all the means of salvation that Christ instituted (Scripture, tradition, sacraments, magisterium).
- **Partial Presence Elsewhere**:
Elements of sanctification and truth may be present in other Christian communities (e.g., the Bible, baptism, certain faith traditions).
### 5. **Subsequent Clarifications**
The document **Dominus Iesus** of the year 2000 clarifies this expression by affirming that the Church of Christ continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church. However, it also recognizes that non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities can play a role in God's plan of salvation.
In summary, the term "subsists" expresses an affirmation of the fullness of the Church of Christ in the Catholic Church, while recognizing the existence of truths and means of sanctification outside its visible structures, thus promoting dialogue and unity among Christians.
I been protestant catholic eastern latin and nobis. I'm now ROCOR orthdox it's the first time I been to a church and felt home.
From where I am, in the Catholic Church, it seems that no one has a perfect history. When I look at Catholic history, continuity starts to fray around ecclesiology (One true church), Papal Supremacy (Universal jurisdiction), and Sacramental Validity (Apostolicae curae). If I look to the East it a crap show between the Greeks and Russians over Sacramental Validity of Baptisms. The East contradicts it self when you closer when it comes to how many councils there are (Some say 7, 8, or 9) and if the Filioque is heresy. If I look to the Anglican Continuum, the few hundred years between Reformation and Oxford Movement seem to be completely Protestant with questionable sacraments. It also has no way of teaching infallibly like in the first millennium with councils similarly to the Orthodox since it lost the mechanism to call a council. No matter where I go it seems no one history can line up enough to say they have always taught the same and never contradicted themselves. Branch Theory seems like a good solution but it has no way to reunite the Church without making everyone positions untenable. I remain loyal to Rome by not openly talking about this but it seems that when you take a good look, everyone has made major mistakes or reversals. Do you have any advice?
The difference is that Anglicans don't claim to have an unchanging body of doctrine or an infallible magisterium, whereas Rome continues to claim that despite its numerous contradictions. Fr. Myles Hixon (I think this originated with him?) rather helpfully described Branch Theory as "Ecclesial Realism"--the fact simply is that the Church is divided. This is a grievous thing, but it is the reality, and we won't move past it until Christians can acknowledge the division (and not chalk it up to mere schismatic splintering).
Wouldn’t that undermine the councils by reducing their authority to non infallible, it would mean that either they are not infallible or a the church is incapable of calling a council unless everyone reunites. Also how would you respond to restorationist that claim that the break in continuity is ok since pure doctrine now is more important than continuity. That those are the largest issues I have with Anglicanism but I have heard of that version of branch theory and I find it hopeful but I have not heard serious debate on it
As I said the previous video, you'll have to determine for yourself which intellectual difficulties you can live with and which you can't. May God give you wisdom.
Advice? What is happening in your local parish?
If you are ever curious to know how holy the faith and doctine of your church, you need only count the number of Saints it has produced.
Catholic Church- Over 10,000 Saints 🙏
23:17 yes, this is a big problem
Anglicanism 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 is why I'm a sedevacantist, a mixture of Peter Dimond and Richard Ibranyi's positions.
Next: why I left Anglicanism
hopefully not, Anglicanism encompasses the one true Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church
@@CupofCloudexcept the part of Anglicanism that has women and rainbow Bishops?
@@justian1772 Good thing the Continuing Anglicans don't do that.
@@GabrielWithoutWings So where is the historic consistency Brother? Where's the obedience to Anglicanism and its official teaching authority?
@@justian1772 You can read about the Continuing Anglicans by looking up the Affirmation of St. Louis. They left the Episcopal church in the 70s when they decided to start "ordaining" women.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is not a pope.
I appreciate your testimony. For me, it’s the other way around. Being Latino, I still have a lot of family members that are still Roman Catholic. A number of them are Pentecostal. I’m the only one that is a Reformed Presbyterian. Like you, I don’t see myself leaving the Presbyterian church. I’m convinced that it’s form of government is biblical and I’ve spiritually have grown up and matured in this church and I married my wife there too.
I converted to APCK last October, 2023. 🙏
See guys if you believe in any religions just see what one believe in.Do God exists n prove His existence. I believe in miracles. Things not happening. I believe in humanity.
Sorry to hear you choose to leave the one and true Roman Catholic Church and the seat of Saint Peter on whom Jesus build His church.
"What!? Contradictions within Roman Catholic doctrine/dogma over the centuries? You must not have actually read it/the Bible/Church father X/ etc. You know that not EVERYTHING the Pope says is infallible, right? The Roman Catholic Church can't be wrong, or Jesus is a liar. You are calling Jesus a liar!"
At least, that is what their apologists say to me if I ever point out anything like this. ;)
But, seriously, the points of tension you noted were similar to those that moved me out of Roman Catholicism. A related one that concerned me was Papal Supremacy (and corollary, infallibility). The underlying problem was that, after 20+ years faithfully participating in the Roman Church, we discerned that it just wasn't helping our family. However, given all of the players (i.e., particular churches) on the field, and your concern for contradictions and tension within a church's system, I am curious about a deeper exploration of your choice for the Anglican Church.... Granted, it has no pretense of being the "one true church," and perhaps that was your main concern. Once it is recognized that those organizations that generally claim to be the "one true church" are not and cannot be, it seems to me that one is left to merely attempting to find that organization that (1) seems as close as possible or at least "sufficiently close" to whatever Jesus and the apostles taught, and (2) is effective at helping one live in deeper relationship with Christ. That could lead to many, many different organizations, as well as a (perhaps-necessarily-) subjective quality in the discernment and choice.
I think that, in some ways, Roman Catholic theology and ecclesiology has become closer to the truth in recent centuries and decades. For example, the move to the concept that the Church of Christ "subsists in" the Roman Catholic Catholic Church, while recognizing that it might also subsist in OTHER groups seems to be a correct "development of doctrine."
"Branch theory" can be problematic, depending on precisely what one means. Perhaps it would be better -- and closer to what you are believing and practicing -- to hold that Jesus did in fact start "one true church," and that this Body of Christ consists of all people who are baptized and attempting to live out Jesus' teachings of forgiveness, love, faithfulness, etc. Each visible church -- each human organization -- manifests that "one true church" to the degree that it and its members continue to follow Christ, avoid error, etc. In this sense, churches (and Christians), are all Christian to the degree that we are in authentic, living, relationship with Christ... and this might have less to do with the particular church I am in than other factors.
In any event, thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences here. Like you, I have great affection for my Roman Catholic and various Orthodox (and other) brothers and sisters in Christ. I don't know that there is any perfect or true church today (as a visible, discrete, human organization). But there certainly are various ones that, despite their (and our) flaws, can help us draw closer to Christ. For many, that will be Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy and, for others, some other church.
Roman Catholic Catechism paragraph #841
@@thejoshuaproject3809, ya, small problem there if one is comparing it with prior "official" statements on that question.
@@philoalethia If it's not official then why is Pope Francis praying with Muslims in a mosque and co-founding the "abrahamic" Faith center in Abu Dhabi? Or JP II having interfaith meetings in Assisi? Seems like standard practice at this point.
Same as Paul quoting aratus and epimenidis in acts 17..the Greek pagans. “We are your offspring, in him we live and move and have our being “ the poem is literally taken verbatim from Zeus’s poem.. To point to the true gospel firms false gospel in not the difference but the similarities. With the intention to initiate dialogue.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. We appear to see things very similarly.
Drew, you sound a lot like David Bercot did during his Anglican phase.
I didn't realize Bercot was in the Continuing Anglican movement. I listened to his take today on infant baptism in the early church, and I didn't find it persuasive. A difficult topic, to be sure, and I plan to do a video on it in the future. I also don't really have any Anabaptist sympathies, broadly speaking.
I highly recommend Erick Ybarra's book on the Papacy. Very honest and fair but deals with a lot of your concerns reg the contradictions you feel you see. I hope you find your way back to the Church 🙏🏼
If you don't mind my asking...a lot of these difficulties existed prior to pope Francis, how is it that they only came to both you after many years of already being Catholic?
Agree that many of the apparent inconsistencies date prior to Francis ?
As a Protestant, I have great respect for Eric! Very honest
As a Catholic I hate seeing videos where we pick at each other’s scabs. Whether people go Orthodox or Catholic, I am equally happy because they can now receive the Sacraments and live the true faith. These types of videos are not helpful for building up the True Church. 😊
There is one flaw in your reasoning after seeing your video.
You state that a Pope and a council in the past bound on the church a law to burn “heretics”, and now the Pope is against this, and also executing criminals.
Remember what Jesus told Peter, you have the authority to bind and loose on earth, and so shall it be in heaven, and you hold the keys to heaven(Paraphrase).
Church laws will change over time, Jesus gave this power to Peter, thus the Popes.
Just like the long held belief in delayed ensoulment, is now abandoned and outlawed.
The Pope is a living law giver.
Prayers said as requested.
I understand, the perception of the appearance of change, but having done my own deep dive, there hasn't really been any substantive change.
I took notes as the video progressed. Please forgive the length.
"Submisssion of mind and will" is not what people assume it means. It means respect needs to be given to the authentic Magisterium and automatic and public dissent is to be avoided. Resolutions to difficulties and corrections should be sought respectfully rather than engaging in a Protestant-style revolution or as the Dutch revolted after Vatican I.
Nothing has changed despite Francis. Capital punishment for basically posing serious danger to souls is still morally licit and Francis has bound no one beyond his personal opinions. There are no anathemas for believing and knowing he's wrong. He's made numerous errors and promoted them.
Catechisms are not infallible even if the Pope changes one to suit his personal opinions.
Canonizations also aren't infallble, they aren't apostolic and they are dependent on human reason. "Dogmatic Facts" are not anything beyond speculation since they were never magisterially codified. Despite Ratzinger's brilliance, his liberality is affected by the Neo-Ultramontanism that preceeded and afterwards railed against the decrees of Vatican I.
Doctors of the Church are simply honorifics and also are not beyond the "authentic" magisterium which can be affected by error. JPII started elevating women because they were women and St. Theresa Liseux is little light on the writings to be really considered a doctor of the Church.
Mortalium Animos focuses on "pan-Christian" assemblies. It's not a sacramental union reference like "one faith, one fold, one Baptism."
Vatican II does not exercise the infallible magisterium. John XXIII laid out the criteria in his opening statement. Paul VI reinforced that statement by proclaiming that Vatican II remained at the lower "authentic" level.
Lumen Gentium despite its soft language still maintains the same criteria. These are referring to situations of valid Baptisms of things like Lutheran babies who die before the age of reason. They were baptized into the Catholic Church despite the outward appearances. There is only one baptism. This is why since the earliest days of the Church, heretics and schismatics were not rebaptized.
There are Catholics who are not of the Latin rite that are still Catholic while not being "Roman" Byzantine Catholics for example are still in communion with Rome.
Thanks for this, Gerry. As I read your comment, it seems to me like you're in SSPX territory, or maybe even sedevacantist territory. While I understand, and am sympathetic to, Catholics who move in that direction, I don't find it plausible for a whole number of reasons. Too many to get into here.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers Fair enough, If you get the opportunity and you think it's rock solid, let me know. I've been looking to see if there's a fatal flaw in Catholicism for so long. I started looking when I wanted to leave back in the early 1990s.
I just recently watched a video of Jay Dyer going over pre and post Vatican II documents and his video had this "Catholic Professor Meltdown" title to it. He was giving imposing proofs of papal contradictions. What he called a really strong argument. The difficulty with his argument was, when I checked on his sources, he said he quoted "Mortalium Animos" but the quote isn't there. He then falsified the texts of Lumen Gentium and Nostra Aetate in order to create a Straw Man.
Prayers your way.
Seriously, you picked a denomination whose leadership (Archbishop of Canterbury) is picked by **secular** head of state to serve IT'S interests??
He has no authority over anglo Catholics
Roman Catholics are misunderstanding Matthew 16:18.
The confession that "Jesus is the Christ the Son of God" is the only foundational truth that Christ builds His church on.
Peter’s confession is the rock.
And therefore each member of the congregation must begin their own personal transformation journey (born again) with their own personal confession of faith that Jesus the Son of God is the Christ.
I am sad that you left Catholic Church, you left Peter , who had given by Christ the key in heaven and the church to lead. I hope you will return to the church.
Unless I am mistaken, the Anglican Church teaches Predestination and Election. John Calvin was wrong about these beliefs.
I’m a former Anglican (Now Orthodox) the Church has no position either way some Anglicans are reformed others are not
@@MassachusettsTrainVideos1136 Thanks for clarifying.
@@RogerBesst No problem
up
Why I Left Roman Catholicism
Part Eight - When did the Pope become the Antichrist and Which Pope was the first Antichrist? (Conclusion)
Answer: Pope Damasus I (c. 304 - 395 AD), according to the logic and parameters of Thomas Cranmer's 39 Articles of Religion in his Book of Common Prayer.
1. Pope Damasus succeeded the previously mentioned Pope Liberius, the pope who presided over the efforts to stamp out the Arian heresy rekindled by Emperor Constantius, the son of Constantine.
2. According to the Britannica Com article St. Damasus I. pope:
[Britannica Com /biography/Saint-Damasus-I]
A. "St. Damasus I ... was the pope from October 1, 366, to December 11, 384. During his rule the primacy of the Roman see was asserted."
B. "Damasus was the first pope to refer to Rome as the apostolic see, to distinguish it as that established by the apostle St. Peter, founder of the church."
C. "Rome’s primacy was officially pronounced by a synod called in Rome in 382 by Damasus, who was perhaps wary of the growing strength of Constantinople, which was already claiming to be the New Rome."
D. "He was notable also for his work in discovering the tombs of martyrs, for which he wrote many verse inscriptions, and was responsible for the restoration of Rome’s catacombs."
3. From the Britannica article, one can see the direct violations of Thomas Cranmer's 39 Articles:
A. Pope Damasus's assertion of "the primacy of the Roman see" and referring "to Rome as the apostolic see" violated the authority of Thomas Cranmer and the Church of England to pronounce judgement on all other churches in Article 19's "so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith."
B. "Rome’s primacy was officially pronounced by a synod called in Rome in 382 by Damasus" violated Thomas Cranmer's Article 21 that states: "General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes."
C. Pope Damasus's leadership "... in discovering the tombs of martyrs, for which he wrote many verse inscriptions, and was responsible for the restoration of Rome’s catacombs" violated Thomas Cranmer's Article 22's "The Romish Doctrine concerning ... Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."
4. So in addition to 'who' (Pope Damasus I) and 'when' (382 AD), there now is added the 'where' (Council of Rome) regarding the first Antichrist Pope in terms of violating Thomas Cranmer's Articles 19, 21 & 22.
5. But there is also a 'what' involving the content of the Council of Rome that further violates a number of other of Thomas Cranmer's 39 Articles that definitively cements Pope Damasus I's status as the first Antichrist Pope.
Stay tuned for Part Nine that will provide the Epilogue.
So I’m hearing a consistent criterion for you has been a prohibition of women in priesthood and outcasting of sexual minorities.
Whatcha a "sexual minority" in actual.Biblical Terms?
Interesting analysis but the speaker's position is the product of over thinking. The RCC, Anglican and EO churches are all in a flaky organisational and theological mess. We have to choose our mess and get on with our prayer lives as best as we can. There is quite a difference between the EO Patriarchates. Some of them are pretty much OK, especially at parish level, which is what really counts.
First of all , God be with you in your journey. But I will point out one assertion which was just wrong. In Exsurge Domine, the “censures” were of varying weights but all given at the end so you didn’t know which censures were given to which of Luther’s propositions. Thus some were only offensive to pious ears for example . It was probably done on purpose so the Pope didn’t have to make a call on each one . Only those condemned as “heretical” would likely be protected under the charism of infallibility. But we don’t know which ones those were unless other instances of infallible condemnations can pin that down. The “global censure “ in the bull was as follows :
With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth.
And yes I have the most recent copy of Denzinger. Strictly speaking, Denzinger doesn’t actually tell you which teachings are infallible so you must be confused . It simply collects what is judged to be the most important authoritative teachings.
i also think you were wrong on the Amazon figures being idols but I see someone already commented on that .
I do appreciate your sincerity and charitable tone. The door swings both ways and we would be glad to have you back one day .
I agree that Denzinger doesn't tell us which teachings are infallible, but as I said in the video, Exsurge Domine fulfills all of the conditions for infallibility outlined at Vatican I. "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit" is therefore infallibly condemned as "erroneous" and "against Catholic truth"-which is, again, what I said in the video. I understand that there are different levels of error. I still fail to see how this is compatible with the recent change to the Catechism on the death penalty, not to mention the teaching of Dignitatis humanae, which I didn't get into in the video.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathersor condemned as scandalous or offensive to pious ears. Which means that Luther’s view could later be accepted
salvation is found in the Lord Jesus Christ & his word, NOT in ANY church building or denomination. NO catholic or protestant church can save you.
As an Orthodox I can tell you with utter certainty that we believe that The One Church cannot be divided. In my copy of the Basil Liturgy, it is written "... lead back those who are in error and join them to thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." It is very much wrong to believe we teach Liturgically, that schismatics are in any way still part of the Church. We don't claim to judge for God, but your interpretation is incorrect. Honestly thought i misheard and had to hear it again. God bless!
I just looked it up: "make schisms in thy Church to cease." And I would encourage you to go back and listen to the portion of the video where I mention a number of the historical schisms *within* the church-Meletian, Acacian, etc. There needs to be conceptual space for that within Orthodoxy, because it's a historical fact. Not all schism is schism from the church.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers yes, it is written as you quoted. I did not doubt that it was because I myself remembered hearing something similar. In light of the quote I provided, however, I would argue that your interpretation is at least untenable because Basil would contradict himself. I know from hearing and reading it explicated and explained countless times that Orthodoxy simply does not believe in anything like schisms "within or inside of the Church". You're welcome to read that into Basil's Liturgy but I promise you the Orthodox Church does not teach this, even in the light of "we believe what we worship." This is true very often but not in this case. At least not in your interpretation of the words. Our Church may have flaws but we never backed down from our claim to being The One Church; if you schism, you're out. It sounds like that hard line is part of why you left Orthodoxy, actually.
@@dcndrew_faithofourfathers - I hope you come home to Holy Orthodoxy, I was Anglican, the Anglican communion is an utter mess and dilutes the Faith.
@@justian1772that wasn’t the position the early church took though. It looks like over time, EO have mimicked RC ecclesiology. And RC has tried to mimic EO ecclesiology lately. “His Broken Body” by Fr Laurent Cleenewerck is a good primer.
@@bobjenkins3rd My Brother, the Orthodox have never copied or taken anything from RC Ecclesiology as far as I know. Back when it was one Church maybe some crossover happened in a good way, but certainly nothing like that happened post schism.
First comment ❤
sedevacantist before I ever leave the church
Catholics are required to subject their will & conscience to the ordinary magisterium.
THE QUR'AN IS A CHRISTIAN TEXT AND JESUS IS MUHAMMAD AS MUHAMMAD IN THE QUR'AN BEING A EUPHEMISM FOR MESSIAH(CHRIST)HaMASHIAK. DUST OFF YOUR FIGURE OF SPEECH LESSONS BEFORE READING THAT BOOK...
The Qur'an properly read appears to be a Christian text calling for the return to the authority of the first apostolic Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:1-32 in rejection of the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople as it is written:
"I will raise among them the Messiah(Christos)HaMashiak, a Prophet(Messenger) like you Moses, Him they must listen..."
Deut.18:15-19; Acts 3:17-24; Acts 7:1-30; Luke 24:25-27 and 44-47; Acts 17:1-3; John 4:24-25, Surah 3:81, etc.
So Messiah(Christ) is a Prophet(Messenger) in the likeness of Moses as Matthew proved it. Like Moses He stayed in Egypt. Like Moses He was Mediator of a New Covenant.
So the only way to pull the rug from under the obscurantists' feet even defeat Jihadism is to reject the categorization Christianity versus Islam and affirm instead Nazareans versus Islam. Nazarean being anybody following the teachings of Paul which of course permeate the Council of Nicaea and Constantinople.
Islam was a reaction to the West attempt to hijack Christianity or the Gospel and use it to overrun the globe.
But the Prince rejected by the Arabian builders became the cornerstone and this is the Lord doing !
More in:
1/The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:1-30 and the partition of Christianity in two Apostolic Traditions: Circumcised(Muslims) vs. Uncircumcised(Paul's Nazareans or Catholics...)
2/The Making of the Arabian Messiah, Sole Ruler of Mankind Like Caeasar Augustus.
you trade rolex for a casio
Casios keep better time.
@@physiocrat7143 nope, not accurate thats they are easy to imitate.
@@theyoungrider5449 Any half decent digital watch keeps better time than the best mechanical one and don't mind being dropped. Also you cannot risk going out with a Rolex on your wrist. Citizen Eco-drive gain a couple of seconds a month.
The RCC has not delivered consistent Rolex quality for the past 50 years. Most of the time like an unbranded LCD watch you would get at a market stall.
@@theyoungrider5449
Funnily enough somewhere on YT is a comparison of a real and fake Rolex, the fake is better quality. The RCC does not deliver Rolex quality and has not done for the past 50 years.
While your reasons for leaving the eastern orthodox church were legit, the ones you give for having left the roman catholic church are very weak. 1) we should not leave the catholic church because of the failures of one pope in particular, we stay in the church because we believe it is the true church that was guided and preserved by the holy spirit over 2000 years. This transcends the action of one pope, and Francis did not say anything false in ex-cathedra 2) The post-Vatican 2 catholic church does not teach that all “non-Catholic” will be saved, it only opens the door for a possible exception to those who were “invincibly ignorant”. It is not a guarantee that they will be saved. the normal way to be saved is still to be a follower of Christ in the true catholic church. This is not in contraction with previous teaching in history. 3) if the first church council of Jerusalem was infallible (act chapter 15), then why not the other church council in history? 4) finally, if you do not have an infallible body of teachers(the magisterium) to guide the church, then how do you know that the bible you have in your hand is infallible? The Bible does not tell you what is the canon of the New Testament, and the authors of the New Testament never claim that their books were without errors. It is the church tradition that declares with infallibility the 27 books of the canon without having any errors in them.
Angelican Christianity without the commitment.