Anglican Apologetics

Heh ok, enjoy following a faith built on a fatass king blaming his wives for his deformed sperm and killing them over it

How can anyone believe in the Anglican church when its creation was so obviously political? Even Russia Orthodoxy is more respectable, because it was at least independent at one point.

I'm not an Anglican.

More importantly, I'm not going to hell following the "pope".

OP here. That's what I'm saying. There are many Anglicans alive and throughout history but I've genuinely yet to see a single document supporting the Anglicans in their schism from Rome.

The point of this thread is to try and get sources. I'm being genuine here and trying to read their side of it.

Because it doesn't matter why anyone breaks with the Whore of Babylon, just that you make the break from the Whore of Babylon. She's pure evil; the most evil institution on earth.

You could break with the RCC on the grounds that their doors open outward, and that would be just fine.

Obviously you're not Anglican. You're probably non-denom. Anglicans at least have a sliver of the true faith involved in their theology today.

You suck at Google. Seriously.

The Anglican Position
Though the Church of England sprang from a Reformation milieu, historically Anglicanism has tended to be defined in a positive fashion (i.e. not as a "protest" movement, but as a constituent branch of the Catholic and Apostolic Church). It owes much of this irenic character to such figures as Richard Hooker, whose Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie continues to influence Anglican theology and thought. Much the same could be said about the Caroline Divines, the Cambridge neo-Platonsts, and the leaders of the Oxford movement in subsequent centuries.
At the dawn of the twentieth century, Anglicanism enjoyed an overall reputation as a comprehensive and learned approach to the faith, but like most of modern Christianity, it was deeply affected by the crisis in confidence that was the result of economic depression and two World Wars. By the middle of the twentieth century, much of the Anglican Communion began to embrace secular values that were contrary to the catholic faith. As a result, orthodox believers have had to place a renewed emphasis on apologetics.
In recent years, much fine work has been done, both in the pulpits of the ACC and in various publications and pamphlets. Many of these are available from the Anglican Parishes Association Book Publisher. More recently, one can point to traditionalist blogs such the ones linked in the Online Resources section of this site. Much of the what is contained in this section stems from efforts such as these.

>I'm not an Anglican.

Obviously you're not Anglican.

You're a regular Sherlock Holmes.

The Roman Catholic Church can not be the Whore of Babylon because according to John, the WoB existed at the time of his writing.

The true WoB was the pagan Roman Empire.

Like, seriously bad. Incapable of an honest thought, one might think.

Like their ancient counterparts, Christians today have had to turn their attention outward, and defend against those who seek to discredit the teachings of the Church.

Some of the better known apologists of the early-twentieth century include G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, and Dorothy Sayers.

Their work is continued today by such figures as William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, and Peter Kreeft.

Link?

I see.

And did Rome exist at the time of John's writings?

And did Mystery Babylon, @ 2400 BC, exist prior to John's writings?

anglicancatholic.org/anglican-apologetics

G. K. Chesterton was Catholic. C. S. Lewis and Dorothy Sayers were both Anglo-Catholics.

Also, I don't understand your "pagan Roman Empire".

When has Rome been anything but pagan?

Probably why they didn't say Chesterton was an Anglican, huh.

Burden of proof falls on you to prove that Rome is pagan after converting to Christianity.

Revelation 17

Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to hand over to the beast their royal authority, until God’s words are fulfilled. The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”

What great city ruled over the kings of the earth in 95 AD again?

It was implied that he was an Anglican theologian of the 20th century.

They changed the names on their idols from Horus and Isis to Jesus and Mary, and continued in their pagan ways.

The Christian Church for the first three hundred years remained somewhat pure and faithful to the Word of God, but after the pseudo-conversion of Constantine, who for political expedience declared Christianity the state religion, thousands of pagans were admitted to the church by baptism alone with out true conversion. They brought with them pagan rites which they boldly introduced into the church with Christian terminology, thus corrupting the primitive faith.

Even the noted Catholic prelate and theologian, Cardinal Newman, tells us that Constantine introduced many things of pagan origin: "We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own...The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine, pp. 359, 360. This unholy alliance also allowed the continuance of the pagan custom of eating and drinking the literal flesh and literal blood of their god.

This is actually how transubstantiation entered the professing church.

Pagan Rome did. No one is denying that. What I'm denying is that Rome remained the WoB after it converted to Christianity. Implying that would be implying that all of early-Christianity was the WoB.

It was? I must have missed that inference. Hmmmm, let me see. Infer, infer, infer.....nope. Not there.

When do you suppose Rome converted to Christianity?

>Implying that would be implying that all of early-Christianity was the WoB.

No, the Christians were the ones the papists were killing.

The Catholics were, and are, and will be, the acolytes of the Whore of Babylon.

Early 300s AD.

Oh, I see. You're suffering from the delusion that Catholics are Christians.

They're pagans. And they did what pagans do.

Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practiced by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is "one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion." The Story Of Civilization, p. 741. The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. Roman Society From Nero To Marcus Aurelius, Dill. In Egypt priests would consecrate mest cakes which were supposed to be come the flesh of Osiris. Encyclopedia Of Religions, Vol. 2, p. 76. The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and Haoma drink closely parallel the Catholic Eucharistic rite. Ibid. The idea of eating the flesh of deity was most popular among the people of Mexico and Central America long before they ever heard of Christ; and when Spanish missionaries first landed in those countries "their surprise was heightened, when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of communion...an image made of flour...and after consecration by priests, was distributed among the people who ate it...declaring it was the flesh of deity..." Prescott's Mexico, Vol. 3.

You still haven't proven that the Church is the WoB, you can call it that all you want to but if you're not going to provide any shred of proof then I'm going to ignore that.

Rome is Babylon, per Peter.
Rome is the Whore of Babylon, per John.
Roman Catholicism is Mystery Babylon.
The pope is the False Prophet of Mystery Babylon.

What more do you need to flee?

You're implying that Catholics created transubstantiation and didn't get it from Christ Himself when He turned the bread and wine into His Body and Blood during the Last Supper.

No, I'm saying that pagans did what the Catholics do, but thousands of years earlier, because Catholics are pagans tied directly to Babylon.

>Christ Himself when He turned the bread and wine into His Body and Blood during the Last Supper.

See, that never happened.

Luke 22
After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

Get a clue. Fruit of the vine is not human blood.

Luke 22:19
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

I assume He was lying then?

>You're suffering from the delusion that Catholics are Christians.
I've understood this argument. Are you saying that between the rise of the early church and Martin Luther literally no one on Earth was Christian?

Seems like god should've fixed that bit sooner.

True born again Christians who correctly interpret the Word of God see without any difficulty whatsoever that our Lord's reference to His body and blood was symbolic.

When Jesus spoke of Himself as being the bread, He was not teaching the fictitious transubstantiation of the Papal church. It is preposterous to hold that the Son of God turned a piece of bread into Himself.

When Jesus said "this is my body" or "blood," He did not change the substance, but was explaining that He is the one "represented" by the passover bread and wine. Jesus did not say touto gignetai, this has become or is turned into, but touto esti, which can only mean this represents or stands for.

It is perfectly clear in the Gospels that Christ spoke in figurative terms, referring to Himself as "the door," "the vine'', "the light," "the root," "the rock," "the bright and morning star," et cetera. In Luke 22:22, Jesus said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood." In First Corinthians 11:25, 26, He said, "This is the new covenant in my blood...For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come."

In these words He used a double figure of speech...The cup was not literally the new covenant, although it is declared to be so as definitely as the bread is declared to be His body. They did not literally drink the cup, nor did they literally drink the new covenant...Nor was the bread literally His body, or the wine His blood. After giving the wine to the disciples Jesus said, 'I shall not drink from henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come' (Luke 22:18). So the wine, even as He gave it to them, and after He had given it to them, remained 'the fruit of the vine'! Paul too says that the bread remains bread;...'but let each man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup' (First Corinthians 11:28). No change had taken place in the element.

This was after the prayer of consecration, when the Church of Rome supposes the change took place, and Jesus and Paul both declare that the elements still are bread and wine." Roman Catholicism, Boettner.

The Kingdom of God in this passage refers to the Catholic Church. And it did come with the Church, in the sacrifice of the Mass.

Perhaps nobody in the Catholic church, sure. It's been evil since Day One, built on lies, greed and fraud. The Donation of Constantine was a known forgery, and a fraud, yet the church took the land, and the money.

Christians have been murdered by Catholics in the tens of millions.

To say the two groups are the same is to say that lions are gazelles.

The only thing in the bible that refers to the Catholic church is the Church of Laodecia, the apostate church, and the Whore of Babylon, the universal church you belong to, to your shame.

>country is more important then God

Do you know what "catholic" means? the Church of Laodecia can't be catholic, because it isn't universal.

>implying the pope is sinless
when will catholics stop being retarded and understand that only JESUS CHRIST is sinless?

It used to mean universal.

The papists changed it to mean just them.

They're evil people. They will never know until Judgment Day how evil their institution is.

No one claims that the Pope is sinless.

It does mean universal, and the theological opinion is universal through the Magisterium and through the Vicar of Christ.

The pope is the second most evil person on the planet, and the best you can say is "nobody said he's perfect".

Here's your pope. Here's his future.

Revelation 19:20 But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

No, it used to mean universal.

The RCC now says that salvation is only within it; that catholic now just means Roman Catholic.

You liars; you're so easy to spot.

>Magisterium

Coven

>Vicar of Christ
Vicar, root for vicarious in Latin.
In stead of, in place of.
In Greek, the same prefix is Anti

Vicar of Christ in Latin is literally Antichrist in Greek.

O K
But do you actually believe what's in pic related? because what that implies is that any doctrine he formulates or anything is basically like the bible without errors. I don't believe that the catholic church is the whore of babylon (those are protestants :^)) but i'm just saying yknow

We're actually Christians; the protestants were catholics, including Martin Luther, and their protest against the wickedness and evil of the Vatican went unheeded.

Instead, the Vatican started a vicious counter-reformation and ordained an entire order of assassins, the Order of Loyola, aka the Jesuits.

Their leader is the black pope, as he wears the black robe.

Their last leader was the current pope; the pope, today, on Peter's chair, is the black pope.

The opinion of the Roman Catholic Church was the universal opinion until sects left the Church. The Church, however, never changed its dogma to fit that of the times, unlike every other "church" which is run by transsexuals lol

>the roman catholic church was the universal opinion till sects left the church.
by sects you mean protestants of orthodox. Because if the latter your statement is complete bullshit AND you know it.

So, their opinion was that when everyone was together, their church had universal salvation.

And when everyone left them, only their church had universal salvation.

I'm glad you finally came to realize what I said three posts ago. They changed the meaning of the word.

And now you have a pissed off Catholic-lite on your hands.

kek

If you're a splinter of Catholics and you see it as the Whore of Babylon. Doesn't that make Protestants her slutty little sister?

This guy is a known troll who believes that there were "Christians" scattered around the Catholic dominated world who were continually suppressed and prosecuted.

If such a belief seems to fly in the face of the actual historical record that is because it does

That is prehaps the worst translation of anti I have every heard.

Vicar was a late roman title for a representative of the emperor, like a ambassador or diplomat

This protestant polemicist ITT isn't convincing anybody with his shitty arguments, not to mention he has seriously derailed the original question by OP.

OP, if you're still in this thread, one of the best cards Anglicans had up their sleeve for a long time was the promise of "liberty of conscience." Both Lutherans and Anglicans for a long time justified their existence by the association of Roman Catholicism with intellectual oppression. Now, however, with the rise of freedom of religion in most countries, many of the historical Protestant churches are in decline because many of their followers have simply rejoined the Catholic Church, gone atheist, or are "born again."

In my case, my father's family was mostly Anglican for years and years but converted to the RCC after the decline of the Episcopal Church and its subsequent attempt to stay relevant through gay marriage, consecrating openly homosexual bishops in relationships, etc.

For me it's scripture that convinced me the most of the authenticity and the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. It's all there. Prayer also helped.