As a member of the Reconquista, I'd like to personally thank you for spreading the word, even if you have issue with it. Thank you for your critique as well. Thank you for the encouragement as well. This has made its way to the Reconquista server.
Overall a great video one thing I do want to mention is that the plan for the Reconquista is not to enter already theologically liberal churches but to reinforce the already good churches and protect them until the liberal churches die out
Yeah. Redeemed has always said _not_ to join the liberal churches, but instead to find the dying out Protestant churches. The best way to save the denomination is wait out for the wokes to leave. A church that doesn't preach the reason to need a Saviour will never out last one that does.
I saw a video from him just a few days ago where he mocked some Protestants who want talk about Crusades and taking back Protestantism but won’t go to a church with a female pastor, saying that those are the places that most need traditional voices.
As a Brazilian former protestant, that recently converted to Catholicism, to see the templar cross from the Portuguese Order of Christ, so inportant for us and for portuguese catholics, to see it being used by conservative Protestants to make a "Reconquista" against progressist Protestant Churchs is prery curious...
You realize there's no such thing as "protestant" or "catholic" crosses right? A cross is a cross. As a christian you can use them as you wish. There is no patent on a cross design...
eae amigo. Queria saber como foi a sua conversão e os motivos dela. Também sou jovem e cresci em assembleias de Deus, atualmente estou em uma igreja batista, mas sinto muito interesse na teologia católica e parece que as coisas fazem muito mais sentido quando se olha do ponto de vista católico. No momento me sinto muito dividido.
@@egcm3 A Igreja Católica é a única Igreja fundada por Cristo (Mateus 16:18 - 20). O protestantismo é uma grande contradição, há luteranos que veneram os santos, enquanto os batistas chamam isso de idolatria. Volte para casa, para a verdadeira Igreja.
As a firm Protestant, i see the Reconquista as an attempt to concil our denominations for a greater good. In the end, we're all on the side of God, and indepently of what we are, we all want to end with progressivism in christianity, and made those who went for it come back to the way of the Lord. I think it's a good opportunity to see, that despite our differences, we are sons of The Lord, and we all bow before Him. I love my catholic and orthodox brothers, and i hope someday, we could get along, or at least, stop arguing among us. May God bless you all.
How do we plan to raise a family? Good question, I think the answer is found by correcting a fundamental misunderstanding about Reconquista: Reconquista does not tell people to attend liberal or weak parishes, Reconquistadors attend conservative parsishes in liberal denominations. The parishes we attend still have thriving, and vibrant christian communities
This is my understanding of the strategy, please correct me if I am wrong: Surrender the already liberal/fallen churches and retreat to the conservative churches; fortify the conservative churches, build community and wait for the fallen ones to weaken and die out. Retake the fallen churches as they weaken.
@@emperorzombie1420 Yep! It can get confusing when we say 'churches' because people don't know if we mean denominations or parishes. If you replace all the word 'church' in your comment with 'parish' then yes, you are correct. Hope that doesn't make it even more confusing lol
I heavily disagree tbh, even as a catholic myself. Heck, I even encourage Catholics to attend a Diocesan TLM instead of a SSPX because I want to encourage growth in the diocese, while also encouraging the reviving on the traditional mass. The SSPX isn’t gonna fix the social structure of the church and how it’s ran, all it does is take traditional Catholics out the main church, and gives liberal Catholics more power.
Wrong. All it's doing is increasing the number of Catholics on earth. The SSPX is not separate from the Church. They are a fraternity of priests who's apostolate is to simply administer the Tridentine sacraments.
@@recs8564I don’t think he’s arguing the SSPX is separate from the Church, but saying it’s necessary to keep the fight going in the dioceses in order to preserve the TLM in those areas.
@@Swierczie How are you supposed to “preserve” the TLM when the Supreme Pontiff is the one saying the Novus Ordo is a permanent change and is trying to get everyone to move over for good? The change is coming from the top down, so to fight against that is inherently schismatic, right?
Thank you for the critique, creating and upholding a movement like this isn't and won't be as easy as a lot of us think it is. It is important to be wary of the pitfalls that could skewer the movement in its tracks. I of course disagree on quite a few things. For example while Protestantism do believe in the "invisible Church", all those that's part of the Body of Christ, a lot of denominations (especially high Church Protestantism) still puts a lot of emphasis on the authority of the Church. By influencing these Synods or Assemblies, we wan't to appeal to a lot more Churches and the Church communities with a more permanent resistance to liberalism. If you have more criticism we would be interested. Have a great day and may the Lord Bless.
I believe they want to save the heritage of American Protestantism, which includes the buildings but also the tradition of community. I’m not sure that this is really a conservative theology Vs extreme liberal theology conflict. This is a conflict between Protestant traditional values (laudable and Christian things) and new consumerist post modern culture which has wormed its way into the Protestant church (for the reason, as said in the critique, that there are no guardians or authority to shepherd the people). As American Catholics we deal with the same issue but we are protected by two-fold things: the Church and her hierarchy who protect us against the preaching of heresy, and the universality of our church. It’s big and stubborn and so deeply rooted that it resist the changes winds of wort culture. My message to the reconquisteros is that I will pray for them and hope for their success through God’s grace, but also that they are always welcome in the Universal Church. You are our brothers and sisters and we want you by our sides before Christ.
Well we are part of _the_ universal Church, as are you. But anyways, one of the goals of our Reconquista is to not have anymore splitting, which is we aren't just leaving to start a whole new denom. The goal is to revive the current denoms. And it's not just America. We're world wide now. It was recently announced on Redeemed's channel that Catholics can join too, as the fight is on your home territory as well.
Good luck growing your channel. Its nice to see young men speak up after having dealt with many different views and struggles then what my friends did 10 years before you. While so many of my friends are gamers, not many are religious let alone christian (2 of 10?) So maybe thats a good future video on slowly building relationships with friends so that it is easier to talk about things like "hey lets talk about God :)"... *smiles agressively
I'm excited for this channel though! I anticipate lots of great topics of discussion in the future. (I very much identify with being a little channel that's still willing to put in the effort to create quality videos!)
What's worth saving: the cultural influence, the historic basis the evangelical offshoots do not retain, and, the endowments and the donations that were meant by the generous donors to go to god's kingdom, not to satan's
@@Holy-Heretic Because planting churches is the best way to convert people, and even if you don't believe that that's the only thing the Church is supposed to do (which I don't), it is still important.
@@Holy-Heretic I think that this is true even in places that already have churches. For some reason, people prefer going to the new place rather than the old place, probably for no other reason than that it's new. Of course, this is only true if the church plant has the backing of an established church, and preferably more than one, and being part of a denomination is a great way to ensure that support.
You raise some interesting points. The one thing I’ll say is that the Oxford Movement and the Reconquista are occurring in very different circumstances. The first occurred during the upswing of theological liberalism in the West while the second is being initiated as liberalism appears to be reaching a nadir. The mainline protestant liberals are literally dying out while the youth are hungry for tradition. So the tide is in the favour of the Reconquistators
Isn't Trad-Catholic an oxymoron too? Like if you reject Vatican 2 then you reject the Pope's authority, then you aren't Roman-Catholic, right? Traditional Catholicism is just Orthodoxy in Latin, right? Why not become Orthodox?
You can still be trad and accept V2, it’s just that the liberals twist the documents to suit them and their heresies. V2 is just a reiteration of Catholic theology with some finally dogmatised and worded differently for the times
intriguing, and did you protest the church to accept these changes? Maybe there should be a word for people who protest the catholic church's dogma. If only such a term existed 😔@@deusvult8340
Because a lot of catholics hold firm in the filioque that the orthodox church refutes. There are plenty of catholics, however, that believe in pre vatican II theology.
As someone forced to attend a NeoPentecostal/Non-Denom/"Biblical accurate" church, I'm not sure if this is a white pill. Nerveless salutes from Mexico.
I agree with you on most of what you have said, and I don't really think many of these institutions are worth saving for the reasons you've outlined. But some structures are easier to co-opt than others. The Anglican church of Australia is a great example. The Victorian Anglican church, like all other Anglican churches, has a representative democratic structure made up of ministers, bishops, and archbishops. By the simple act of having most ministers in the Anglican system, you can outweigh the democratic system with people of your Anglican movement. The "City on a Hill" church movement is probably the most insulated Anglican movement that I know of. They exist within the Anglican church only in their structure, participation in Anglican democracy and adherence to the regulations and confessions of the Anglican province of Victoria. They don't accept pastors from the Anglican ruling body, instead electing and ordaining their own. So they come to wield a lot of weight and power (accounting for perhaps 15% of Melbourne Anglicans) without many of the downsides that come with trying to reform a movement from the inside. To my knowledge, bible believing Anglicans now number around 60% of politically active/influential Victorian Anglicans. They probably number much more in laymen because the progressive churches tend to have very small, aging congregations. In this case, the "Reconquista" of the Victorian Anglican Church was and is quite effective. It was done patiently and slowly over a period of many decades by the encouragement of several influential Anglican reformers, and represents the general movement towards bible-centred teaching within Victoria (by the grace of God) rather than a radical/concerted takeover of Anglicanism. The bible believing conservatives outlasted the progressives and have slowly increased in number. I wasn't a big fan of how Redeemed Zoomer has dismissed and criticised the breakaway Presbyterian movements of conservative, bible believing Christians for having "too many pastors" and teaching "rigid, unthinking doctrines without giving you a solid understanding". I'm an Australian, but we Christians down under are influenced by the solid and faithful teachings of these breakaway churches such as Westminster Theological Seminary in the Reformed Theological Tradition. I know a pastor here that got an excellent education in Westminster and might be the most thoughtful and earnest pastor I have met in my entire life.
“We need safe, homogenous communities in which to grow our faith.” So the BenOp approach? Redeemed Zoomer criticized Rod Dreher for “retreating” from the culture.
The culture is dying. Our culture is built on assumptions established in the 19th and 20th century which, to the extent they ever were true, certainly aren't now.
The problem with the Protestant approach is that they are modernists in being closed to life, if a traditional town had 4-10 kids per family tradition al Christianity would grow
@@Rolando_Cueva Are you seriously making the disgusting argument of overpopulation? Not only pathetic and scientifically debunked, but so anti-Christian I have no idea how you are in this channel’s comment sections. I don’t want more, we need more, as we are commanded to multiply first and foremost a, and gues what, the Muslims? They won’t stop having kids, even the ones who live in Europe still have like 10 children, the population will grow, only difference is, will they be Christian or Muslim
@@Rolando_Cueva Why wouldn't I? Real talk though, unless you're China or India. Overpopulation is nowhere near a problem. In fact currently, most developed countries have a stagnating, if not declining birth rate. Meaning that we're eventually going to shrink.
As a member of the reconqista I only want to spread the gospel and also refute false gospels and major heracys. I appreciate the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church i love the art of Catholicism and their saints i love the vestments of Orthodoxy and the music of Orthodoxy yet im protestant because i believe salvation is by grace alone through faith alone as said in ephesians but I know faith without works is dead also we are to do the works of God and not of man.
Having watched a few of his video, it does seem to me like that guy has too high of an opinion of himself and what he can realistically accomplish as a random dude on the internet. But aside from that, reforming an existent denomination isn't the most cost-effective weapon in the Protestant toolbelt. It generally doesn't work and it's far, far easier to break off and found your own group whose new core was the faithful remnant of the old. That's why Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Anglicanism didn't become the permanent face of Protestantism; when some people became dissatisfied, they founded the Anabaptists and Baptists and Methodists. Then these groups splintered over time based on various controversies. And finally, there were people who became dissatisfied with all of the many options out there, so now you have non-denominational churches. Which themselves occasionally splinter into new churches. In short, such is the Protestant way and it literally always has been. Institutions themselves mean little to us; what matters is what institutions were designed to serve and protect.
The goal is to revive the churches, and part of our goal is to strengthen the conservative remnants of the major denoms. We've had some wins, the PCUSA was prevented from not allowing conservatives to serve as pastors. Redeemed is technically just a random guy, but so many pastors have been working with us. One big win is that we're all working together to do this.
A clear and embarrassing misunderstanding of the movement, as well as the problems faced by us Protestants. Additionally you Romans have your own issues as well
I don't think there's anything oxymoronic about protestants calling their movement a reconquista. It just means retaking. also did the Oxford movement really fail or did it actually develop into Anglo-Catholicism and ultimately into the Ordinariate, something that you, as a catholic, should find very favorable? and can you say that it failed if there are still Anglo-Catholics around?
My church directly traces itself to the Oxford movement. We are more catholic than the ordinariate churches, which don't even have more than one mass per week
This video perfectly describes the problem with so called "traditionalists" and particularly the SSPX. If you compare leaving a particular presbyterian denomination for any other to a rogue bishop, who ignored the legitimate authority of the Church and created a schismatic organization of priests as basically equivalent, then your thinking is basically protestant in nature. The ecclesiology of the SSPX is not catholic, it is protestant.
Please don't say the "Episcopalian church". It's a minor nitpick, but the church structure is Episcopal, the people are Episcopalians. The easier way to get around this is to just call us Anglicans. "Episcopal" is almost always correct, "Episcopalian" is almost never correct unless you are talking about a group of individual members of the church
At least in America, I think the common parlance is to refer to those who attend the Episcopal Church as Episcopalians and those who attend GAFCON groups, or other Anglican split offs as Anglicans. I see no other way to really distinguish the two in America
@@paulwoodhouse3386 Yes, the same can be said for Christianity in general, if one sincerely believes to have the truth to salvation, it is only right to call others to it
There's some serious problems with the Oxford movement example. For starters, it was not related to the issue of liberalism. This earlier wave of anti-liberalism you are referencing was the fundamentalist/modernist split in America, which the oxford movement had no part in. Yes, it was reaction to the church "becoming liberal", but in this time period, they were not referring to liberal theology. Rather, they were upset that the puritan wings of the church were abandoning liturgy. You said that they sought to defend the real presence in the eucharist, but this was never up for dispute. In that time period, not just anybody could receive, but only confirmed Anglicans, and no Anglican could be confirmed who denied the real presence in the eucharist. What they did want to defend was the traditon of adoration, monstrances, and higher reverence of the eucharist. It also did not fail. Yes, it was persecuted within England, but, it traveled all across the world, and would also later become accepted in England. Anglo-Catholicism became the dominant flavor of Episcopal churches throughout the 19th and early 20th century. Our 1928 prayerbook was written by Anglo-Catholics: they added in compline, confession, unction, and prayers for the dead (all of which were in the original prayerbook before puritans took over). The 1979 prayer book was continued under their influence, which also added in the little hours. Almost all modern American episcopal churches have Anglo-Catholic heritage. My church in Florida traces itself directly to the Oxford movement. Our priest is from the Bahamas. What flavor of Anglicanism is practiced there? Anglo-Catholic. Most of the African and Caribbean Anglican churches had their first mission churches installed by Anglo-Catholics. And in England today, many broad and high churches have embraced Anglo-Catholic liturgy. It has been several generations. None of them can remember when their liturgy was persecuted. Your point about the institution was correct then, but not now. We have had several archbishops at this point who have accepted the Oxford heritage on the wider church, to where it is simply just an accepted reality about our church. The 39 articles are no longer used to discipline catholics, and the 39 articles were never binding outside of England where the movement took off much more successively. Our church simply changed in every possible way after the Oxford movement, it's no longer a puritan church at all, the stereotype of an Anglican is certainly not an American Pilgrim figure anymore but rather a knock-off catholic in just about every region the two are practiced side by side.
This is a great comment. I would love to have someone like Father Robinson or another Anglican scholar in to talk about the history of Anglicanism and the influence of the Oxford Movement. I will make a few comments here though: Firstly, I think the attempted aim of making the Anglican Church into a “branch”of Christianity on par with the Apostolic Churches of Rome and Constantinople ultimately failed, precisely because while Anglo-Catholicism certainly influenced the Anglican Communion, it didn’t become synonymous with it. I think it failed firstly in the lifetime of the Oxford movement because many of its practices were persecuted. Even if it took a generation passing, the actions of the instruction during this time leave room for a defense of a Evangelical understanding of Anglicanism. I think it had failed during the late 19th and early 20th century, because while Anglo Catholicism became the dominant faction, it wasn’t exclusively so, as very low Church Evangelical Anglicanism was still tolerated. A good read about the dissatisfaction of Anglo-Catholic clerics during this time I have found to be Salve Mater by Frederick Joseph Kinsman. Finally, the movement ultimately failed throughout the 20th century because while the Anglican Communion formally adopted many Anglo Catholic practices, they did not preserve the traditional Apostolic succession due to allowing female bishops, something the Sacramentarians would have universally been against. The splitting of Anglicanism into separate communions ruins the original point of the Oxford Movement. Further, to formally accept that Anglo Catholics are not bound by the 39 Articles as they are unorthodox is also to ruin the point of the Oxford Movement, as the very foundations of Anglicanism would be shaken. There would no longer be a branch of English Christianity, but many Anglican sects. Again, something the Sacramentarians would be against. I am therefore still convinced that the parallel between the two movements is still applicable. Both lack support from the hierarchy and are fundamentally at odds with the vision of the institution they seek to reform. With that being said, thank you very much for watching. I hope to have many discussions with Anglicans in the future.
No. There are some denominations that misrepresent the nature of Christ, question His divinity, change the nature of the Trinity, create their own theology, and practice clear and consice heresy. There ARE denominations that call themselves christian that are NOT Christian.
@westerncentristrants525 I love that you knew where I was going with that. Since writing the comment, though, i have realized that is an unfortunate reality, and it makes it more difficult to bring them to truth because they believe that they know Jesus. Pray for them, as for everyone else as well.
I dont think it is necessary for you to make this video. This is our issue, and you shouldn’t be involving yourself in something that you don’t take part in. I don’t mean that in any rude way, but I just think that this is something you shouldn’t get yourself involved in because this really doesn’t involve Catholics. I also think your example is a little outdated. The early 1800s was a long time ago, and a whole lot has changed. Again, I mean that in no rude way, please don’t take this the wrong way, but I don’t see the relevance of a movement so long ago compared to a movement now.
Disagree, I think this critique is very useful even though I disagree with some of the points. Maybe his example is outdated but there are still wisdom that could be gleamed from it.
What is it they say about those who don't learn from history? Now, I'm not saying you cannot succeed. Only that you cannot succeed if you don't bare in mind the problems people who have gone before you have faced
@@marvalice3455 it’s just 2 very different things he is comparing. The one he was talking about was about bringing new ideas forward and changing a denomination, while the Reconquista was simply about reverting back to how it was before. How it should be. These ideas are completely different. It’s like comparing forwards to backwards.
The problem is you guys are going to fail anyway. your institution is based off of heresies to begin with. Second that even men 10 times more intelligent than any member of your movement or not able to convince the institution that they were working with. Therefore giving an example of why this movement will be tiresome. Something like the sspx is different from what you guys are doing we have members by the millions but also financial support to back that up to allow people like Murray to do the work he does.
@@puremercury try again Matthew 16:18(Papacy), Luke 22:32(Peter’s Faith Strengthen Brethren), John 16:13(Guided by Holy Spirit), 1 Cor 11:12 (Tradition), John 6:35-71(Eucharist)
As a member of the Reconquista, I'd like to personally thank you for spreading the word, even if you have issue with it. Thank you for your critique as well. Thank you for the encouragement as well. This has made its way to the Reconquista server.
May God grant you many joyful years!
Overall a great video one thing I do want to mention is that the plan for the Reconquista is not to enter already theologically liberal churches but to reinforce the already good churches and protect them until the liberal churches die out
Yeah. Redeemed has always said _not_ to join the liberal churches, but instead to find the dying out Protestant churches. The best way to save the denomination is wait out for the wokes to leave. A church that doesn't preach the reason to need a Saviour will never out last one that does.
I saw a video from him just a few days ago where he mocked some Protestants who want talk about Crusades and taking back Protestantism but won’t go to a church with a female pastor, saying that those are the places that most need traditional voices.
@@mr.p241 in that moment I think he's speaking about a church in more of a broad denominational sense, like the Presbyterian *Church* of the U.S.A
But I love Little Dark Age Patrick Bateman sigma edits...
As a Brazilian former protestant, that recently converted to Catholicism, to see the templar cross from the Portuguese Order of Christ, so inportant for us and for portuguese catholics, to see it being used by conservative Protestants to make a "Reconquista" against progressist Protestant Churchs is prery curious...
You realize there's no such thing as "protestant" or "catholic" crosses right? A cross is a cross. As a christian you can use them as you wish. There is no patent on a cross design...
@@coolkangaroo5179 yes, I know It. I Just assinalated a curious feels... Something like: "huuummm 🤔 Yare Yare daze 😏"
eae amigo. Queria saber como foi a sua conversão e os motivos dela. Também sou jovem e cresci em assembleias de Deus, atualmente estou em uma igreja batista, mas sinto muito interesse na teologia católica e parece que as coisas fazem muito mais sentido quando se olha do ponto de vista católico.
No momento me sinto muito dividido.
@@egcm3 A Igreja Católica é a única Igreja fundada por Cristo (Mateus 16:18 - 20). O protestantismo é uma grande contradição, há luteranos que veneram os santos, enquanto os batistas chamam isso de idolatria. Volte para casa, para a verdadeira Igreja.
@@arturmonteiro8541😂
As a firm Protestant, i see the Reconquista as an attempt to concil our denominations for a greater good. In the end, we're all on the side of God, and indepently of what we are, we all want to end with progressivism in christianity, and made those who went for it come back to the way of the Lord. I think it's a good opportunity to see, that despite our differences, we are sons of The Lord, and we all bow before Him.
I love my catholic and orthodox brothers, and i hope someday, we could get along, or at least, stop arguing among us.
May God bless you all.
How do we plan to raise a family?
Good question, I think the answer is found by correcting a fundamental misunderstanding about Reconquista: Reconquista does not tell people to attend liberal or weak parishes, Reconquistadors attend conservative parsishes in liberal denominations. The parishes we attend still have thriving, and vibrant christian communities
This is my understanding of the strategy, please correct me if I am wrong:
Surrender the already liberal/fallen churches and retreat to the conservative churches; fortify the conservative churches, build community and wait for the fallen ones to weaken and die out. Retake the fallen churches as they weaken.
@@emperorzombie1420 Yep! It can get confusing when we say 'churches' because people don't know if we mean denominations or parishes. If you replace all the word 'church' in your comment with 'parish' then yes, you are correct. Hope that doesn't make it even more confusing lol
@@emperorzombie1420 Although the second element to the strategy is sending conservative pastors to take over liberal parishes
@@Holy-Hereticonce they’re viable for reconquest, yes.
I heavily disagree tbh, even as a catholic myself. Heck, I even encourage Catholics to attend a Diocesan TLM instead of a SSPX because I want to encourage growth in the diocese, while also encouraging the reviving on the traditional mass. The SSPX isn’t gonna fix the social structure of the church and how it’s ran, all it does is take traditional Catholics out the main church, and gives liberal Catholics more power.
Wrong. All it's doing is increasing the number of Catholics on earth. The SSPX is not separate from the Church. They are a fraternity of priests who's apostolate is to simply administer the Tridentine sacraments.
@@recs8564I don’t think he’s arguing the SSPX is separate from the Church, but saying it’s necessary to keep the fight going in the dioceses in order to preserve the TLM in those areas.
@@Swierczie
How are you supposed to “preserve” the TLM when the Supreme Pontiff is the one saying the Novus Ordo is a permanent change and is trying to get everyone to move over for good? The change is coming from the top down, so to fight against that is inherently schismatic, right?
@@recs8564 if that was the case, they’d be doing their masses in diocesan churches instead like the FSSP
@@recs8564 SSPX has no legitimate apostolate within the Catholic Church; their canonically irregular status persists.
Thank you for the critique, creating and upholding a movement like this isn't and won't be as easy as a lot of us think it is. It is important to be wary of the pitfalls that could skewer the movement in its tracks.
I of course disagree on quite a few things. For example while Protestantism do believe in the "invisible Church", all those that's part of the Body of Christ, a lot of denominations (especially high Church Protestantism) still puts a lot of emphasis on the authority of the Church. By influencing these Synods or Assemblies, we wan't to appeal to a lot more Churches and the Church communities with a more permanent resistance to liberalism.
If you have more criticism we would be interested.
Have a great day and may the Lord Bless.
I believe they want to save the heritage of American Protestantism, which includes the buildings but also the tradition of community.
I’m not sure that this is really a conservative theology Vs extreme liberal theology conflict. This is a conflict between Protestant traditional values (laudable and Christian things) and new consumerist post modern culture which has wormed its way into the Protestant church (for the reason, as said in the critique, that there are no guardians or authority to shepherd the people). As American Catholics we deal with the same issue but we are protected by two-fold things: the Church and her hierarchy who protect us against the preaching of heresy, and the universality of our church. It’s big and stubborn and so deeply rooted that it resist the changes winds of wort culture.
My message to the reconquisteros is that I will pray for them and hope for their success through God’s grace, but also that they are always welcome in the Universal Church. You are our brothers and sisters and we want you by our sides before Christ.
Well we are part of _the_ universal Church, as are you. But anyways, one of the goals of our Reconquista is to not have anymore splitting, which is we aren't just leaving to start a whole new denom. The goal is to revive the current denoms. And it's not just America. We're world wide now. It was recently announced on Redeemed's channel that Catholics can join too, as the fight is on your home territory as well.
Good luck growing your channel. Its nice to see young men speak up after having dealt with many different views and struggles then what my friends did 10 years before you. While so many of my friends are gamers, not many are religious let alone christian (2 of 10?) So maybe thats a good future video on slowly building relationships with friends so that it is easier to talk about things like "hey lets talk about God :)"...
*smiles agressively
Haha good luck my friend
As catholic i agree whit this movment,woke protestants need to return to Christ and tradition
And Romans need to return to the Bible.
@@puremercury we reading bible if you refer to gay s*its in Germany, that's problem of bishops
@@puremercury and second how you know i am roman, What if i am greek/byzantine
@@BasiliscBaz What?
@@puremercuryyou don't know What i talking about, do you?
I'm excited for this channel though! I anticipate lots of great topics of discussion in the future.
(I very much identify with being a little channel that's still willing to put in the effort to create quality videos!)
What's worth saving: the cultural influence, the historic basis the evangelical offshoots do not retain, and, the endowments and the donations that were meant by the generous donors to go to god's kingdom, not to satan's
Also, why do a church plant instead of being a pastor in a church which is already built and funded, which you can additionally save from liberalism
@@Holy-Heretic Because planting churches is the best way to convert people, and even if you don't believe that that's the only thing the Church is supposed to do (which I don't), it is still important.
@@samueldimmock694 Sorry, I phrased that poorly, I meant doing a church plant in a town that already has a mainline church
Missionary work is a completely different matter for sure
@@Holy-Heretic I think that this is true even in places that already have churches. For some reason, people prefer going to the new place rather than the old place, probably for no other reason than that it's new.
Of course, this is only true if the church plant has the backing of an established church, and preferably more than one, and being part of a denomination is a great way to ensure that support.
You raise some interesting points. The one thing I’ll say is that the Oxford Movement and the Reconquista are occurring in very different circumstances. The first occurred during the upswing of theological liberalism in the West while the second is being initiated as liberalism appears to be reaching a nadir. The mainline protestant liberals are literally dying out while the youth are hungry for tradition. So the tide is in the favour of the Reconquistators
The Catholic Church is facing a lot of the problems of liberalism too
Isn't Trad-Catholic an oxymoron too? Like if you reject Vatican 2 then you reject the Pope's authority, then you aren't Roman-Catholic, right? Traditional Catholicism is just Orthodoxy in Latin, right? Why not become Orthodox?
You can still be trad and accept V2, it’s just that the liberals twist the documents to suit them and their heresies. V2 is just a reiteration of Catholic theology with some finally dogmatised and worded differently for the times
intriguing, and did you protest the church to accept these changes? Maybe there should be a word for people who protest the catholic church's dogma. If only such a term existed 😔@@deusvult8340
Because a lot of catholics hold firm in the filioque that the orthodox church refutes. There are plenty of catholics, however, that believe in pre vatican II theology.
you are a great speaker, love the comfy ambiance too.. id watch this over scholastic answers any day =]
✝️☦️✝️
Great video! keep it up!
As someone forced to attend a NeoPentecostal/Non-Denom/"Biblical accurate" church, I'm not sure if this is a white pill. Nerveless salutes from Mexico.
I agree with you on most of what you have said, and I don't really think many of these institutions are worth saving for the reasons you've outlined.
But some structures are easier to co-opt than others. The Anglican church of Australia is a great example. The Victorian Anglican church, like all other Anglican churches, has a representative democratic structure made up of ministers, bishops, and archbishops. By the simple act of having most ministers in the Anglican system, you can outweigh the democratic system with people of your Anglican movement. The "City on a Hill" church movement is probably the most insulated Anglican movement that I know of. They exist within the Anglican church only in their structure, participation in Anglican democracy and adherence to the regulations and confessions of the Anglican province of Victoria. They don't accept pastors from the Anglican ruling body, instead electing and ordaining their own. So they come to wield a lot of weight and power (accounting for perhaps 15% of Melbourne Anglicans) without many of the downsides that come with trying to reform a movement from the inside.
To my knowledge, bible believing Anglicans now number around 60% of politically active/influential Victorian Anglicans. They probably number much more in laymen because the progressive churches tend to have very small, aging congregations. In this case, the "Reconquista" of the Victorian Anglican Church was and is quite effective. It was done patiently and slowly over a period of many decades by the encouragement of several influential Anglican reformers, and represents the general movement towards bible-centred teaching within Victoria (by the grace of God) rather than a radical/concerted takeover of Anglicanism. The bible believing conservatives outlasted the progressives and have slowly increased in number.
I wasn't a big fan of how Redeemed Zoomer has dismissed and criticised the breakaway Presbyterian movements of conservative, bible believing Christians for having "too many pastors" and teaching "rigid, unthinking doctrines without giving you a solid understanding". I'm an Australian, but we Christians down under are influenced by the solid and faithful teachings of these breakaway churches such as Westminster Theological Seminary in the Reformed Theological Tradition. I know a pastor here that got an excellent education in Westminster and might be the most thoughtful and earnest pastor I have met in my entire life.
“We need safe, homogenous communities in which to grow our faith.” So the BenOp approach? Redeemed Zoomer criticized Rod Dreher for “retreating” from the culture.
The culture is dying.
Our culture is built on assumptions established in the 19th and 20th century which, to the extent they ever were true, certainly aren't now.
The problem with the Protestant approach is that they are modernists in being closed to life, if a traditional town had 4-10 kids per family tradition al Christianity would grow
@@lothara.schmal5092 8 billion humans and you want more?
@@Rolando_Cueva Are you seriously making the disgusting argument of overpopulation? Not only pathetic and scientifically debunked, but so anti-Christian I have no idea how you are in this channel’s comment sections. I don’t want more, we need more, as we are commanded to multiply first and foremost a, and gues what, the Muslims? They won’t stop having kids, even the ones who live in Europe still have like 10 children, the population will grow, only difference is, will they be Christian or Muslim
@@Rolando_Cueva Why wouldn't I? Real talk though, unless you're China or India. Overpopulation is nowhere near a problem. In fact currently, most developed countries have a stagnating, if not declining birth rate. Meaning that we're eventually going to shrink.
As a member of the reconqista I only want to spread the gospel and also refute false gospels and major heracys. I appreciate the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church i love the art of Catholicism and their saints i love the vestments of Orthodoxy and the music of Orthodoxy yet im protestant because i believe salvation is by grace alone through faith alone as said in ephesians but I know faith without works is dead also we are to do the works of God and not of man.
Having watched a few of his video, it does seem to me like that guy has too high of an opinion of himself and what he can realistically accomplish as a random dude on the internet.
But aside from that, reforming an existent denomination isn't the most cost-effective weapon in the Protestant toolbelt. It generally doesn't work and it's far, far easier to break off and found your own group whose new core was the faithful remnant of the old. That's why Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Anglicanism didn't become the permanent face of Protestantism; when some people became dissatisfied, they founded the Anabaptists and Baptists and Methodists. Then these groups splintered over time based on various controversies. And finally, there were people who became dissatisfied with all of the many options out there, so now you have non-denominational churches. Which themselves occasionally splinter into new churches.
In short, such is the Protestant way and it literally always has been. Institutions themselves mean little to us; what matters is what institutions were designed to serve and protect.
The goal is to revive the churches, and part of our goal is to strengthen the conservative remnants of the major denoms. We've had some wins, the PCUSA was prevented from not allowing conservatives to serve as pastors. Redeemed is technically just a random guy, but so many pastors have been working with us. One big win is that we're all working together to do this.
>11:09 "Join the community and..."
> Holy hermits do brrrrr
Could do a video about how to fix the sedevacantsts and vatican II "churches" divide?
A clear and embarrassing misunderstanding of the movement, as well as the problems faced by us Protestants. Additionally you Romans have your own issues as well
I don't think there's anything oxymoronic about protestants calling their movement a reconquista. It just means retaking.
also did the Oxford movement really fail or did it actually develop into Anglo-Catholicism and ultimately into the Ordinariate, something that you, as a catholic, should find very favorable? and can you say that it failed if there are still Anglo-Catholics around?
My church directly traces itself to the Oxford movement. We are more catholic than the ordinariate churches, which don't even have more than one mass per week
That isn't exactly what happened. He also is dead wrong about it failing, anyway.
This video perfectly describes the problem with so called "traditionalists" and particularly the SSPX. If you compare leaving a particular presbyterian denomination for any other to a rogue bishop, who ignored the legitimate authority of the Church and created a schismatic organization of priests as basically equivalent, then your thinking is basically protestant in nature. The ecclesiology of the SSPX is not catholic, it is protestant.
the fact they use a Catholic name is telling
new sub...keep it up
I don’t think this will stop them
Please don't say the "Episcopalian church". It's a minor nitpick, but the church structure is Episcopal, the people are Episcopalians. The easier way to get around this is to just call us Anglicans.
"Episcopal" is almost always correct, "Episcopalian" is almost never correct unless you are talking about a group of individual members of the church
At least in America, I think the common parlance is to refer to those who attend the Episcopal Church as Episcopalians and those who attend GAFCON groups, or other Anglican split offs as Anglicans. I see no other way to really distinguish the two in America
@@ConfessionsofAConvert That wasn't the critique.
Protestants using reconquista is an oxymoron
Even though I am not sure I agree with everyhting you say, yous till made a great video
How come I knew this was gonna turn into a Catholic stump speech?
The title is literally, a “Catholic critique…”
@@lothara.schmal5092 Does every Catholic argument for something must involve a call to become Catholic?
@@paulwoodhouse3386 Yes, the same can be said for Christianity in general, if one sincerely believes to have the truth to salvation, it is only right to call others to it
There's some serious problems with the Oxford movement example. For starters, it was not related to the issue of liberalism. This earlier wave of anti-liberalism you are referencing was the fundamentalist/modernist split in America, which the oxford movement had no part in. Yes, it was reaction to the church "becoming liberal", but in this time period, they were not referring to liberal theology. Rather, they were upset that the puritan wings of the church were abandoning liturgy.
You said that they sought to defend the real presence in the eucharist, but this was never up for dispute. In that time period, not just anybody could receive, but only confirmed Anglicans, and no Anglican could be confirmed who denied the real presence in the eucharist. What they did want to defend was the traditon of adoration, monstrances, and higher reverence of the eucharist.
It also did not fail. Yes, it was persecuted within England, but, it traveled all across the world, and would also later become accepted in England. Anglo-Catholicism became the dominant flavor of Episcopal churches throughout the 19th and early 20th century. Our 1928 prayerbook was written by Anglo-Catholics: they added in compline, confession, unction, and prayers for the dead (all of which were in the original prayerbook before puritans took over). The 1979 prayer book was continued under their influence, which also added in the little hours. Almost all modern American episcopal churches have Anglo-Catholic heritage. My church in Florida traces itself directly to the Oxford movement. Our priest is from the Bahamas. What flavor of Anglicanism is practiced there? Anglo-Catholic. Most of the African and Caribbean Anglican churches had their first mission churches installed by Anglo-Catholics. And in England today, many broad and high churches have embraced Anglo-Catholic liturgy. It has been several generations. None of them can remember when their liturgy was persecuted.
Your point about the institution was correct then, but not now. We have had several archbishops at this point who have accepted the Oxford heritage on the wider church, to where it is simply just an accepted reality about our church. The 39 articles are no longer used to discipline catholics, and the 39 articles were never binding outside of England where the movement took off much more successively. Our church simply changed in every possible way after the Oxford movement, it's no longer a puritan church at all, the stereotype of an Anglican is certainly not an American Pilgrim figure anymore but rather a knock-off catholic in just about every region the two are practiced side by side.
This is a great comment. I would love to have someone like Father Robinson or another Anglican scholar in to talk about the history of Anglicanism and the influence of the Oxford Movement.
I will make a few comments here though: Firstly, I think the attempted aim of making the Anglican Church into a “branch”of Christianity on par with the Apostolic Churches of Rome and Constantinople ultimately failed, precisely because while Anglo-Catholicism certainly influenced the Anglican Communion, it didn’t become synonymous with it.
I think it failed firstly in the lifetime of the Oxford movement because many of its practices were persecuted. Even if it took a generation passing, the actions of the instruction during this time leave room for a defense of a Evangelical understanding of Anglicanism.
I think it had failed during the late 19th and early 20th century, because while Anglo Catholicism became the dominant faction, it wasn’t exclusively so, as very low Church Evangelical Anglicanism was still tolerated. A good read about the dissatisfaction of Anglo-Catholic clerics during this time I have found to be Salve Mater by Frederick Joseph Kinsman.
Finally, the movement ultimately failed throughout the 20th century because while the Anglican Communion formally adopted many Anglo Catholic practices, they did not preserve the traditional Apostolic succession due to allowing female bishops, something the Sacramentarians would have universally been against. The splitting of Anglicanism into separate communions ruins the original point of the Oxford Movement. Further, to formally accept that Anglo Catholics are not bound by the 39 Articles as they are unorthodox is also to ruin the point of the Oxford Movement, as the very foundations of Anglicanism would be shaken. There would no longer be a branch of English Christianity, but many Anglican sects. Again, something the Sacramentarians would be against.
I am therefore still convinced that the parallel between the two movements is still applicable. Both lack support from the hierarchy and are fundamentally at odds with the vision of the institution they seek to reform.
With that being said, thank you very much for watching. I hope to have many discussions with Anglicans in the future.
I actually agree with basically all of these 95 Theses, and I'm sure many of you here would regard me as a liberal Christian
I really do have so much respect for Catholics and the Roman Catholic Church. I just can’t agree with a few of the theological doctrines and dogmas.
We're all Christian. No matter the denomination.
No. There are some denominations that misrepresent the nature of Christ, question His divinity, change the nature of the Trinity, create their own theology, and practice clear and consice heresy. There ARE denominations that call themselves christian that are NOT Christian.
@@jaydawg116 I'm not talking about Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses
@westerncentristrants525 I love that you knew where I was going with that. Since writing the comment, though, i have realized that is an unfortunate reality, and it makes it more difficult to bring them to truth because they believe that they know Jesus. Pray for them, as for everyone else as well.
This is just sad, if I were a protestant seeing catholics try something like this I would be cheering from the stands. Shame on you
He starts from a false Roman first premise.
What are Gemzy Protestants?
Gen Z, Generation Z
Always criticizing but never doing, the way pf the catholic
@@aldagosto1413 Nah, we’re just chilling, not having to worry about having transgenders as pastors without apostolic succession
I dont think it is necessary for you to make this video. This is our issue, and you shouldn’t be involving yourself in something that you don’t take part in. I don’t mean that in any rude way, but I just think that this is something you shouldn’t get yourself involved in because this really doesn’t involve Catholics.
I also think your example is a little outdated. The early 1800s was a long time ago, and a whole lot has changed. Again, I mean that in no rude way, please don’t take this the wrong way, but I don’t see the relevance of a movement so long ago compared to a movement now.
Disagree, I think this critique is very useful even though I disagree with some of the points. Maybe his example is outdated but there are still wisdom that could be gleamed from it.
Fair.@@hennie5307
What is it they say about those who don't learn from history?
Now, I'm not saying you cannot succeed. Only that you cannot succeed if you don't bare in mind the problems people who have gone before you have faced
@@marvalice3455 it’s just 2 very different things he is comparing. The one he was talking about was about bringing new ideas forward and changing a denomination, while the Reconquista was simply about reverting back to how it was before. How it should be.
These ideas are completely different. It’s like comparing forwards to backwards.
The problem is you guys are going to fail anyway. your institution is based off of heresies to begin with. Second that even men 10 times more intelligent than any member of your movement or not able to convince the institution that they were working with. Therefore giving an example of why this movement will be tiresome. Something like the sspx is different from what you guys are doing we have members by the millions but also financial support to back that up to allow people like Murray to do the work he does.
So protestants are trying to herd cats again🤷♀🤷♀
Better than being herded by heretics.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
Your ecclesiam is not it.
@@puremercury try again
Matthew 16:18(Papacy), Luke 22:32(Peter’s Faith Strengthen Brethren), John 16:13(Guided by Holy Spirit), 1 Cor 11:12 (Tradition), John 6:35-71(Eucharist)