Why I Am Not Roman Catholic

Young Anglican is just a hobby for a theology nerd. I do all of this in my spare time and don't have any relevant degrees in theology or philosophy, but hope that nonetheless my thoughts and knowledge still have a kind of value.

If you want to support the channel, you can subscribe to my locals, and get early access to some of my videos:

[reespuffs]

Timestamps!

0:00 - Intro

0:30 - Definition of “catholic”

3:05 - Why not a “credobaptist”?

3:40 - “indefectability” of the church

4:50 - Root Problem with the RCChurch!

6:05 - beginning of the 5 reasons

6:31 - 1. Legalism

9:45 - 2. Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope

12:30 - (stronger present-day jurisdiction and Cardinal Bellarmine)

13:45 - 3. False Projection of Theological Unity (amazing points in this section!)

18:10 - 4. Papal Infallibility

22:10 - 5. Dogmas/Dogmatism!

25:10 - Conclusion

[MissingTrails]

Sometimes those of us who lean Anglo-Catholic get asked, "why not just go all the way and swim the Tiber?" This is why. Watch this video.

[Devv_]

Great video! Would love to see you also do videos on why you’re not Lutheran and Orthodox. Since Anglican is so close to both those Churches in different ways.

[danielhixon]

This was a good video. You covered some of my own reasons as well. The creation of additional dogmas that must be believed in order to be saved is a huge one for me. Why would a church animated by charity create additional hurdles for souls to be saved that were not in place previously?
At the same time they end up in the awkward position to formally anathematizing people who believe certain things, or failed to believe certain things, while also venerating as saints people who hold (or fail to hold) the exact same beliefs - and doing both with supposedly infallible authority.

[deusvulture]

Thank you for providing an analysis deeper than a list of evangelical misgivings about any high church practices. 😊 These are newer and more reasonable objections to me.

[redeemedzoomer]

I was with you until you said the first SEVEN ecumenical councils lay out the boundaries pretty well. The seventh council said that you need to kiss pieces of wood or burn in hell, thus damning much of the early church

[jamessheffield]

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.

[briandelaney]

Orthodox May disagree about a state called Purgatory (although there is the concept of the toll houses ) we do believe strongly in praying for the dead including in anniversaries of deaths and Divine Liturgies are offered for their souls

[grettirasmundarson]

I found your channel today and have been loving your takes on things. I am a confessional Lutheran (Dr. Jordan Cooper is my favorite YouTube personality). I was raised in the Roman church, but converted to Lutheranism in college after studying Luther and finding in the doctrine of justification sola fide a resolution to spiritual crisis that I experienced. There’s more to the story because my mother’s family were Swedish Lutherans but converted to to Rome in the recent past, so it was also a coming back to what my family and forefathers believed. The Roman church is a mess, I have long lived experience of this. I’m not even going to bring up what is going on in that church body in 2024. It’s not all it’s cracked up to be. No church body really is at the end of the day, they all are made up of sinful human beings. Lutheranism is my home because I think we do the best job of humbly accepting this reality in our ecclesiology without mystical theories about apostolic succession, being the “ONE TRUE CHURCH” outside of which there is no salvation, etc. I am glad that you have found benefit in Dr. Cooper. For what it’s worth, I have a deep and abiding love for the Anglican tradition and pray the offices from my old beaten up 1928 BCP daily, at least that’s my aspiration. Sometimes I don’t get to it. I could share more about my connection to Anglicanism, but accept my blessings as a fellow catholic Christian who holds the Lutheran Confession.

[therighteousgoat]

I’m not Roman Catholic mainly because of their closed communion and legalistic dogmas that I do not believe are necessary for salvation.

[youngskio]

brother in Christ i am catholic and the pope is in fact capable of error. the pope is not always infallible. but when he is speaking "ex cathedra", then he is infallible. basically, he could never speak with full authority on behalf of the faith and say anything that conflicts with dogma. if he is wrong, then it conflicts with dogma. and that just goes to show the fact he is human. he does share personal opinions sometimes, and we have had antipopes which have done great evils.
if for example the pope were to tell us all to go steal money and give it to others, that would be wrong and he would not be speaking infallibly. also, as catholics, we are not obligated to follow any law or command that is not just. so despite the over legalization that you talk about, it does require some additional consideration. because even our legal system commits injustice. humans can fail, though like you said, there is a promise that the faith as a whole will never fail. i think this is why dogma is so important, many parts of catholicism practiced today we believe being divinely revealed, like the immaculate conception, the rosary, the miraculous medal, our lady of fatima, etc. revelations are very important and go hand in hand with the miracles which constitute saints being made, with the goal of all catholics to become saints.
still, i enjoyed the video and the conversation you make. God bless

[jmseverino]

I appreciate this video. The only thing I would add is that if you accept the first 7 ecumenical councils, then you would accept papal infallibility for it was ascented to in at least one of those councils. I believe it was the 6th.

[FosterDuncan]

What are your thoughts on the Oriental orthodox because I don’t subscribe to all seven councils

[Proximixum]

I've been stuck in trying to find out exactly what I believe, and I've found it. Anglo-Cath for the win!

[bobmccamon]

Initial justification in Catholic theology is by faith alone, absolutely no human works are required!

[waywayway]

Thank you for your video. I hope not to be mean but it seems strange for me that someone could consider being part of a religion created by a king in the XVI century. At least in Catholicism we have a verse that points to Saint Peter, and with Isaiah 22 to the Popes, even if we can disagree on the interpretation. On the other hand and as far as I know, we have nothing in scripture that points to Henri VIII. Also, as a former Evangelical Protestant that was against Catholicism, thanks to some signs that I had the chance to receive and that pointed to the Immaculate Conception, I could see the truth of Catholicism. Could I recommend you to pray God to tell you all the truth regarding Catholicism if you didn’t do that already? Nothing to loose everything to gain.
God bless you brother and I wish you all the best in your spiritual journey.

[famtomerc]

ill become Anglican when the most learned Anglican can sell me on Jesus better than the Catholic Church can.

[arthurhallett-west]

1. Galatians 1:18 (Cephas)
"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days."

Context: Paul recounts his visit to Jerusalem after his conversion. He emphasizes that he met Peter (Cephas) and stayed with him for a short time, likely to connect with the early church leadership.
2. Galatians 2:7-9 (Cephas)
"...they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised..."

Context: Paul refers to an agreement among the apostles that Peter (Cephas) would focus on ministry to the Jews, while Paul would focus on ministry to the Gentiles. This highlights their distinct but complementary roles in spreading the Gospel.
3. Galatians 2:11-14 (Cephas)
"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned..."

Context: Paul recounts a confrontation with Peter (Cephas) in Antioch. Peter had withdrawn from eating with Gentile Christians out of fear of criticism from the "circumcision group." Paul rebuked Peter publicly for his inconsistency, emphasizing that it was contrary to the Gospel's inclusiveness.
4. 1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:22 (Cephas)
"What I mean is that each one of you says, ‘I follow Paul, ’ or ‘I follow Apollos, ’ or ‘I follow Cephas, ’ or ‘I follow Christ.’"

Context: Paul addresses divisions within the Corinthian church, where some believers were aligning themselves with specific leaders, including Peter (Cephas). Paul seeks to emphasize unity in Christ rather than allegiance to human leaders.
5. 1 Corinthians 9:5 (Cephas)
"Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?"

Context: Paul defends the rights of apostles to receive support and travel with their spouses, pointing out that Peter (Cephas) and others exercised these rights.
Key Observations:
Names Used: Paul mostly refers to Peter as Cephas, the Aramaic version of his name, which means "rock." Only in a few cases is "Peter" used (e.g., in some translations of Galatians).
Tone: Paul's mentions of Peter reflect both respect (acknowledging Peter’s role as a leading apostle) and critique (confronting him on his behavior in Antioch). This demonstrates the dynamic relationship between the apostles, especially in the early church's formative years.
Total Mentions:
Paul refers to Peter explicitly about 6 times across Galatians and 1 Corinthians.

[killianmiller]

Regarding St Bellarmine, who is often brought up by schismatic traditionalist Catholics to attack the current pope, I believe this is what you’re referring to from De Romano Pontifice:

“a pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church”

It’s interesting because what this is referring to, about how an ecumenical council may be able to depose a manifestly heretical pope, this is actually an opinion that Bellarmine proposes on a list of options common at the time but does NOT hold to himself. He only considers that as a hypothetical. His actual position is that the Pope could never be a manifest heretic (by a grace of God) and thus could not be deposed in any case; and examples like Vigilius and Honorius can be defended.

[brycemitchell]

Oof, point #4 missed the mark unfortunately. Papal infallibility does not mean that the pope never errs or that he is always automatically infallible. Prior to its definition, Protestants widely claimed that Catholics believe that the Pope is always infallible (which I believe is part of the reason it was formally defined). The definition actually means that Pope is almost never infallible. Since its formal definition, it has been exercised exactly once. Prior to its formal definition it is debated how many times it was used (another reason a formal definition was needed), but still, your characterization of Papal Infallibility as "the pope is never wrong", is a strawman. You did do a good job knocking that strawman down however.

Additionally, you failed to mention the most obvious Biblical text(s) supporting Papal Infallibility, which is the giving of the keys. I realize that you would dispute the Catholic interpretation, but still the Catholic reading is plausible.

Matthew 16: 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

This is viewed as a typological fulfilment of prophecy:
Isaiah 22:20-23 "In that day I will call my servant Eli′akim the son of Hilki′ah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house."

The argument is that binding/loosing in heaven and earth entails a promise of infallibility. And that these keys were passed down through apostolic succession to the current Pope.

This binding/loosing is why ecumenical councils in the Catholic church also can have a charism of infallibility. In Matthew 18:18, Jesus gives the same binding/loosing power he gave to Peter to all the disciples collectively, which is interpreted as meaning that the Church as a whole possess this power.

Anyways, I digress. But still I chuckled that the best verse for supporting Papal Infallibility you gave with is "feed my sheep". I realize that Catholics will mention this verse to support the idea of Peter holding a special office, but still, it is not foundational to infallibility, merely supplemental.

I enjoy your videos, keep up the good work! I think we agree on more than we disagree.