/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

The 39 Articles and concept of via media will help in answering your questions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-nine_Articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_media#Anglicanism

>>808264

Thanks for the answer

>>808258

It differs greatly between High and Low Anglicanism. The monarch of England also takes the position of head of the Church.

>High Anglican

Kind of Catholicism without a Pope in a way. They kept the sacraments and a valid line of Priests for a few hundred years before it got bastardized up with modernism.

>Low Anglican

Disgusting. Atleast High Anglicanism despite being heretics didn't allow the atrocities that this branch has brought with their pro sodomy and women "priests"

>>808265

>>808266

>The monarch of England also takes the position of head of the Church.

Isn't he/she head of the Church of England though, to clarify? And not the 'Anglican Church' which in this context properly speaking there's no such thing? Rather only a communion between different Churches including the CofE? The Queen isn't head of the Episcopal Church for example, which is in the Anglican Communion, is she?

High chuch vs low church is (or was, now that you have it elsewhere) also an important distinction, as was the range of opinions on theological, doctrinal and ecclesiactical issues which is why you now get abortion/homo/women ordination supporting bishops as well as conservative traditionalists, a fact that has seen the description of 'a broach church' being applied to Anglicans, since they haven't tended to splinter off and instead accommodate for better or worse read: worse.

>>808265

np

>>808270

>High chuch vs low church is (or was, now that you have it elsewhere) also an important distinction

To clarify again, meaning an important distinction from other churches, not the distinction between high and low church styles itself (which goes without saying is obviously clearly distinct). idk if i'm making sense

>>808266

reading this properly, this description of the distinction between high and low isn't accurate as far as I'm aware. The distinction is to do with their view of liturgy and the sacrements. There are high anglican churches with women /homo preists that support abortion because they take the liturgy and sacrements seriously, while you can have hardline traditional conservatives at low churches that a more like baptists with their very different view of how sunday worship services should or is ok to be undertaken and preference for seeing the sacrements as more like ordinances like baptists. High = based no homo/women priests and low = homo/women abortion supporting priests is false.

>>808258

>Is it just catholism without a pope?

Nope, the services are much more reverent and beautiful than modern Catholic services, and they teach much less heresy than modern Catholic ecclesiastics.

>>808274

>>808273

u lads britbongs?

Pozzed from the start (I mean, literally pozzed. A woman was the head of their church almost immediately. I think she herself knew how ridiculous it was and that's why they pushed the Virgin Queen meme to take the frivolous appearance down a notch). I've said this before, but they actually contributed some important literature and scholarly work up until the end of the 19th century (like the KJV, various lexicons and reference materials, BoCP, a myriad of Patristic and Apocryphal translations). Then got completely swallowed up by modernism after that. But even non-Anglican English speakers can be grateful for some of these things they contributed.

>>808281

The modern Catholic Church is ten times more pozzed and modernist than the modern Anglican Church.>>808281

>>808289

Name one thing about the Catholic Church that's more pozzed than woman priests carrying out gay marriages.

>>808292

Spoiler alert you can't

>>808292

Clown masses.

>>808302

>Clown mass one time in one parish which isn't doctrine in Jesus' Church is worse than women clergy and fag marriage which is doctrine in prot churches

#ProtLogic

>>808289

Cope.

>>808304

Clown mass one time, puppet mass one time, Halloween mass one time… All these "one-time" abuses sure do seem to add up, huh?

Also: liturgical dancing.

Item 1: Massive papal ecumenism.

Item 2: The antichrist will unite the entire world in a one-world religion.

HMMM. WHAT COULD WE CONCLUDE FROM THIS PICTURE? COULD IT BE THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS LITERALLY THE PREDECESSOR TO THE ONE-WORLD ANTI-CHRIST RELIGION? COULD IT BE?

>>808314

There's nothing in the bible about a one world religion being part of the antichrist's plans. I'm not a Catholic, but this is silly. The church has been commissioned to spread across the world by the direct command of Christ himself, and, logically speaking, it's retarded to think that the very people he spoke to weren't meant to be unified. He himself said that a "house divided against itself can not stand". He called that a mark of Satan, if anything.

And out of ALL of the things he urged on the night before his death, he extensively prayed to God that his followers be one. He's never been a fan of division.

The only people who started pushing this "division is good meme" are recent dispensationalists. But Revelation says that the Beast is first and foremost a military/political leader. He will have a false prophet, for sure, but to think that means CHRISTIANITY is the height of retardery. How can anyone usher in Satan's kingdom in the name of Christ?!!!!!! Since the antichrist is militaristic, it's more likely that the false prophet is his propaganda machine. Not the Church! Not any church! Ugh.

How did Prots get so swindled by this foolishness? You're at the point where up is down and hot is cold and division is Christlike and unity is Satanic.

>>808316

>He himself said that a "house divided against itself can not stand". He called that a mark of Satan, if anything.

Thanks for showing everyone you've never even read the Bible and have no idea what you are talking about lol.

>>808309

>I'm pretty sure no Archbishop of Canterbury ever made the fags so happy that they put him on their magazine covers.

The devil doesn't care about what is already his.

>>808320

So in the mind of a Catholic, the fact that homos love the Pope so much they put him on their magazine covers just proves that he is fighting against them super-hard?

>>808272

>tion, as was the range of opinions on theological, doctrinal and ecclesiactical issues which is why you now get abortion/homo/women ordination supporting bishops as well as conservative traditionalists, a fact that has seen the description of 'a broach church' being applied to Anglicans, since they haven't tended to splinter off and instead accommodate for better or worse read: worse.

My apologies I guess I didn't do my due diligence. I assumed that if they were faithfully upholding the sacraments and the like they wouldn't subscribe to modernist shit as well.

>>808334

Give up state church and join a local, real church and actual body of believers. State church is a monster that ignores Romans 13 and 1 Corinthians 5:13 creating a clear separation of powers. It's a pedobaptist, man-made tradition (of babylon) and corruption manifest.

You shall know them by their fruits.

>>808318

I know what the passage means. Come on now. It's hardly the great theological conundrum of our time. Jesus was accused of casting out demons by the power of demons. He then told the Pharisees "a house divided against itself can not stand". I'm only relating it to this overall question of unity and singularity of purpose. These are generally good things, yet you cast them in the worst light and say that it's some plan of an antichrist figure if done by a church somehow (in this case, the Catholic church). But this was Jesus' purpose to begin with. He didn't simply ask this. He commanded it of us:

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." -John 13:34-35

In addition to that, he commanded that we preach the gospel to all nations, of course.

Basically, he wanted us to 1) love one another and 2) spread across the globe. These are not bad things. Just because secular forces promote globalism doesn't mean globalism itself is bad. The Church was always global. And just because, say, communism or leftism are enemies of individuality doesn't mean unity is bad either. The Church was always called to be unified. It's just that there are right and wrong ways to go about it. And I think it's off to accuse churches to be in on the "Satanic plot", just because they promote unity and global outreach too. Anyone but churches.

What you're saying resembles David Icke tier conspiracies where he stokes fears about a secret cabal of elites "herding the sheep" into globalism in order to bring some nightmarish new world order. Either that or it resembles something from the qanon board or one of the Left Behind novels. The worldview where anything with global reach and unity is a secret plot of Satan - this inevitably makes the Catholic church guilty in your eyes, since it is also global and operates and binds everyone in it under some widespread principles (in effect, a "one world religion"). But if that is wrong in itself, then the ENTIRE church up until the Great Schism is actually the evil false church too (because it was greatly unified and spread across the known world/Roman empire then).

>>808343

>The Church was always called to be unified.

OK, let's see what the Bible has to say about Catholic ecumenism.

Matthew 10:34

>Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

2 Corinthians 11:3-4

>But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Galatians 1:8

>But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Mark 13:22

>For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

2 Peter 2:1

>But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Jeremiah 14:14

>Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.

Boy, Jeremiah really cared about unity, didn't he?

You don't know the Bible and you will probably be first in line to receive the mark of the beast when the tribulation begins.

>>808345

none of these passages debunk unity in the church, only that there are people who will try to deceive and destroy the unity.

Lmao. Prots have finally accepted that their religion ultimately leads to desunity, but now they're trying to frame it as a GOOD thing kek.

>>808337

whats wrong with a confessional state

It's better to just be Catholic, Anglicanism was once an easier option for Catholics, when the true church was heavily persecuted in England, but's it's a false state church.

>>808349

Except they don't.

>>808351

>t. Thinks the Quran is a holy book

>>808352

No, he wanted us to be unified amongst each other. This is the tragedy of ecumenism. It played on the original, sincere need to bring the Church together, and completely jumped the shark by incorporating any and everything to unify with. Thereby ruining any ecumenical outreach even more than it was before. It's obviously sabotage.

>>808302

wow the clown world meme you sure got me with your epic total lack of an argument

>>808352

As if Anglicans believe that. Sorry just because you read on the news that we're that gay doesn't mean that we actually are.

Fake news much

>>808279

hey Zion, check telegram

>>808292

Clapping after the mass. Your music is awful, liturgy shoddy and your priests can't even wear COPEs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn--GfLaKRk

Happy Oak Apple Day to all Anglicans!

>>810539

Thank you, song is very based

Why do people say Catholicism is pro gay? Do you need a southern-baptist stance just to prove your doctrine is against sodomy? The anglican parish not far from me has a "happy pride" sign on their yard. Never seen a catholic parish in my city have anything similar. In canada btw. Unless there's a difference between anglican in NA and anglican in England that I don't know about. I don't pretend to be very knowledgeable on the subject. But I know the CCC says nothing positive about homosexual acts

>>810557

Because those people believe the FakeNews or are satan's minions and willfully lie.

>>810557

Depends on the priest imo. Probably the same with Catholicism but as an Anglican in England you have your liberal priests who willfully go along with promoting s*domy but also a sizeable number of traditionalists who refuse to participate in this. Generally this is split along rural / urban lines with rural parishes being far more conservative.

>>810571

A guy who got kicked out (finally) after 50 years of being allowed by multiple popes to go on molesting children because he was such a good fundraiser for the Church. And he only got kicked out AFTER the news media broke the story about his molesting. Extremely bad look for the Catholic Church.

>>810572

And yet he was still kicked out thus proving your FakeNews wrong. It also sets a precedent on kicking out more sodoclerics. This isn't even mentioning the sodoclerics that were arrested.

>>810574

Nope, he wasn't kicked out for being homosexual, he was kicked out for molesting children. And again, MULTIPLE popes didn't give a shit and let him continue to do it because he brought in so much money through fundraising. How can you even try to defend this?

>>810606

Homosexuals are pedophiles. There is no difference. The fact of the matter remains is that he was still kicked out. Many others were arrested. Stop trying to set up a straw man to make it look like I actually liked mccarrick.

I wouldn't expect a Protestant like you to understand. When the church had power homosexuals were kicked out bannd and executed. Then the Protestants got uppity and revolted reducing the church's power to do those sorts of things. And now you have the gall to complain that the church doesn't do anything?

Maybe if homosexuality was still illegal in the secular world it would be a lot easier to kick the sodoclerics out. But it's not thanks Freemasons very cool

>be Jesus' Church

>have lots of power over the government

>prots complain and revolt

>Jesus Church loses power over the government

> government passes law making faggots a protected class

> said faggots do bad and horrible s*** to children

> Prot's complain that the church isn't doing enough to combat the faggot problem

Personally I'm not worried about the side of my question within the church. The devil's 100 years are up his time is running short. A great cleaning is going to happen in the church with or without Protestants like you.

So I started off as a southern baptist. I got annoyed with their ridiculous holiness spirals, and muh immanent eschaton, and muh jews. So I tried orthodoxy, cuz memes. Did that, but realized authority was hella important, so went catholic. Was still mostly memes, with some recognition of the integral role of catholicism in the development of the west. Finally I realized that I was holiness spiralling just as badly in catholicism as I was as a baptist, because both baptists and catholics are Christians, both have the same Lord, died the same death with Him, and share in the same life with Him, and that's when I really got past the memes.

Anglicanism, for me at least, lets me focus on Christ as Lord, have my sacramental theology as well as my intra-Christian ecumenism, without spiralling in any one direction.

You can be a Thomist, or a Calvinist, or Palamist, or a Donne-ist, where, to quote Donne (an Anglican priest and eminent poet) on the Eucharist:

"He was the Word that spake it;

He took the bread and brake it;

and what that Word did make it;

I do believe and take it."

That's what Anglicanism allows. It allows us to accept differences, while maintaining our adherence to the creeds and unity of faith and of communion. The body of Christ is not just about what you believe, but inward transformation into the likeness of God, manifested through the external rites and rituals of baptism, eucharist, confirmation, ordination, etc, and shown in the fruits of our spirit in our daily life.

The Episcopal Church in the US is infested with progressives, unfortunately. Same in Canada If you're in the US or Canada, ACNA may be a good fit. The parish that George Washington went to split from TEC to join them, as did many others.

>>810656

>inward transformation into the likeness of God, manifested through the external rites and rituals

Please pardon the lack of clarity here, as "manifested" is the wrong word. The relation between inward transformation and external ritual is, in a functioning Church, bidirectional, and inherently hierarchical. The outward sign, the sacramental act imparts real grace, however, the inward transformation, while contingent upon that grace, may occur before the sacrament itself, or even entirely without the sacrament in cases of extremity. This is because God is not a bureaucrat, and while he commands us to keep the sacraments, is not bound to them, but bids us beyond them. However, that said, there are those who receive the sacraments, yet remain dead, seeds planted which never grow and bear fruit. The hierarchy of this is that it is the growing and bearing of fruit–the inward transformation–that is important, with the support structures of the sacramental rites being an obligatory, not-optional, but ultimately secondary part of this pursuit of growth.

Ultimately, the appeal of Anglicanism is that you can go into sophisticated theology as you see fit, but understand that you needn't get stuck on it. You're neo-thomist proof, or originalist exegesis is probably going to have issues. You needn't get stuck on it, because chances are that it ain't the miracle-gro you need.

>>810656

>>810659

You know, it is pretty true, and this is what stayed my hand as far as converting away from Anglicanism. I look around and can't help but notice that as dysfunctional as Anglicanism might seem from the outside, its ecumenical outlook is only for the purpose of strengthening the spiritual life.

My experience has been one of intellectual freedom while in no wise sacrificing spiritual strength. Besides, it betrays a real want of liberality to be attached to any particular man-made idea, rather than being willing to absorb it all in the spirit of Inspiration. The words of the Bible can and should be the foundation for great and good works in the intellectual realm.

>>810659

>Ultimately, the appeal of Anglicanism is that you can go into sophisticated theology as you see fit, but understand that you needn't get stuck on it.

This is the most telling part of everything you said because it exposes how Anglicanism is worthless as a religion since it makes no particular truth claims. One day it's bring your own theology, the next it's bring your own god. It is no wonder that it was so easily corrupted by modernists.

>>810672

>it betrays a real want of liberality to be attached to any particular man-made idea, rather than being willing to absorb it all in the spirit of Inspiration

You sound like a post-modernist, and the divine truths revealed by God Himself in His word are not man-made ideas, nor are they to be mixed with human falsehoods. What concord hath Christ with Belial?

>>810705

>You sound like a post-modernist

Ah, so you didn't read what I wrote whatsoever.

The difference being that a post-modernist by definition must call the Scripture into question, rather than allow its words to guide him. I singled out man-made ideas because they go against divine truth, not because I have some post-modern "egalitarianism of ideas" to in mind. No, you just got triggered by my turn of phrase.

>>810705

By man-made ideas I also mean fussy notions that all who are not neo-Thomists are preaching falsehood. Or whatever theology du-jour

>>810557

>Do you need a southern-baptist stance just to prove your doctrine is against sodomy?

Southern Baptist convention in 2017 mandated the use of the HCSB. All references to sodomite are removed in this gender-neutral translation.

You may need to use the received, unaltered scripture to stand against sodomy. That means independent baptist churches, not the southern baptist church who use the HCSB now. They're ultraliberal.

>>810768

>HCSB

>Ultraliberal

u wat now m8

H/CSB are solid

>>810709

>Ah, so you didn't read what I wrote whatsoever.

Whatever helps you sleep at night

>rather than allow its words to guide him.

You are not allowing scripture to guide you if are admitting human ideas alongside it

>I singled out man-made ideas because they go against divine truth, not because I have some post-modern "egalitarianism of ideas" to in mind

Your exact words were "attached to any particular man-made idea, rather than being willing to absorb it all in the spirit of Inspiration". This can't really be understood as meaning anything but that every theology is a man-made idea, and we should be attached to none in particular, but "absorb it all in the spirit of Inspiration". You're just brazenly backpedalling now

>>810711

If something is not the truth, it is falsehood.

>>810802

???

Just tell me what you want me to say and I'll put your mind at rest. When I say theology I am only speaking of an extra-biblical field of study. Perhaps I should have left off the blanket statements and just simply said I find St. Nicodemus as valuable as Oswald Chambers, so Anglicanism's ecumenical ideological tradition fits with my equally schizophrenic choice in devotional literature.

>>808258 Anglicanism has to be one of the worst denominations of Christianity. It's Protestant bullshit trying to mask itself with Catholic æsthetics. Also, the American Anglican church (Episcopal Church) not only allows females "priests," but even had a female primate. There is zero tradition being upheld here. Here is a rule of thumb, pretty much any ideology coming from the British isles, whether it's philosophy, theology, or whatever, is crap. Continental Europe ftw.

>>811005

Well, I'm thankful for the Anglican Ordinariate. Their Mass is basically the Tridentine Mass but in Elizabethan English. Visit sometime!

>>811011

Maybe I'll visit when they stop ordaining women and marrying faggots.

>>811018

https://ordinariate.net/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_ordinariate

>The structure of an ordinariate enables Anglicans to enter into full communion with the Pope while preserving some degree of corporate identity and autonomy from the geographical dioceses for other Catholics of the Latin Church (also known as the "Latin Rite") and maintaining distinctive elements of their Anglican "theological, spiritual and liturgical patrimony".[54]

>The ordinariates integrate these groups in such ways as "to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared",[29][55][56] is part of "the Latin Rite, within the full communion of the Catholic Church and professes all that church's doctrine on faith and morals."[29][30][57]

They can't allow female "priests" or sodomite marriage if they want to be in communion with the Church. That's what the ordinariate is, it reconciles them to Rome.

>>811005

There's going to be much salt when you guys get your female priests.

>>811096

you lie

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A9-10&version=HCSB

>>811096

This is really calumny at this point.

>>811104

Jude v.7 (KJV)

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Now see what the HCSB says:

>In the same way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them committed sexual immorality and practiced perversions, just as angels did, and serve as an example by undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

It, the HCSB, inserts the ambiguous term sexual immorality, the same ambiguous term used for the properly defined "fornication" elsewhere in the New Testament such as Matthew 19:9.

>>811106

I should also add the SBC admits it is a protestant denomination in this article about its "gender-inclusive" translation that it created for itself.

https://www.wnd.com/2017/06/major-denomination-goes-gender-neutral-on-bible/

>>811099

>>811101

You should have looked into things yourself then, because it's clear here that in 2017 the HCSB was made as a new corruption against God's ever-living and unchanging Word.

>>811110

Would that be happen to be the KJ🅱️

>>811110

NASB 6-7:

>And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after [g]strange flesh, are exhibited as an [h]example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

It's a bad translation I'll agree. I think CSB is better:

> and the angels who did not keep their own position but abandoned their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deep darkness for the judgment on the great day. 7 Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns committed sexual immorality and perversions,[d] and serve as an example by undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

>>811140

They are all bad for the fact they mangle Deuteronomy 23:17. It's supposed to be about the sodomite, but they all change it to "cult prostitute" or "ritual abuser" which literally strips all coherent meaning to what is supposed to be a clear passage against sodomy.

This is all due to the post-60's movement of political correctness pressuring people to change it. That much should be readily obvious as that clearly influences all their changes throughout. And, in fact, in this case I happen to be siding with the vast majority of scholarship historically in rejecting it and continuing to maintain that those who lust after strange flesh are sodomites and are abominations and beasts.

Also, people referring to any of these translations that change this are ultraprogressives.

>>811146

Heb word rarely used, Greek is πορνεύων so it's not really specific. 23 18 suggests prostitution was intended. Sorry.

The noted liberal squishes who translated the NASB agree, cult prostitute.

>>810705

>since it makes no particular truth claims.

You mean aside from the nicene creed, the literal resurrection etc.? Those truth claims?

No, we merely maintain the flexibility required to follow development without getting stuck the way certain groups tend to. We differentiate between what we know and what we merely think. That's a detriment when you become overly liberal as in the case of TEC, but in its right and proper proportion, liberality is more asset than detriment. Reason rules over the passions, but it is spirit that rules reason. Sometimes the reason gets stuck on things that the spirit knows, though claiming such without spiritual maturity this leaves you open to deceivers, which is the situation today.

To those of you discussing sodomites, all I have to say is that sodomy should be illegal.