Yeah and the Anglican church declares itself to be apostolic

The thing is, being apostolic is not something you decide

Which is in our creed

But something you are through an unbroken line of succession

Muhammed could as well declare himself to be apostolic

Please don't be retarded and facetious

You know what I mean

Many people who were Catholic became Anglican

And that's where we draw our line from

Retarded and facetious?

Just because we differ Theologically doesn't mean the denomination sprang out of nothing

The moment people break away form the Church the line is broken

You can't apostatize and say you continue a line you just rejected

Yes, comparing Anglicanism to Muhammed

No, it actually sprang out of the convenience of a divorce

It's not apostasy though. We still believe.

Apostasy is not just some vague "I believe in Jesus"

Aryans believe in Jesus

No it sprang from the reformation and was aided by the divorces of Henry 8 correct

The thousand heretics regarding the trinity beleive in Jesus

So are Orthodox heretics?

It sprang from a fat king

I will call them heretic

It was born directly for the convenience of Henry

So yoie argument is

Let's not try to sugarcoat that

Your*

My argument is that you can't spit on the Church and brag about how apostolic you are

Even if the Catholic Church went entirely against the Bible it would still be the one true Church because it had an unbroken line of apostolic succession?

My argument is that you can't dismiss the authorities of the Church as silly outdated things that need "reformation" and then expect people to take you seroulsy

I'm not spitting on anything

Do you know how the collection of books you know as the "bible" came to be?

Yes of course.

It was

Compiled

I know

And there were disagreements about those compilations

But still

If the Catholic Church went against scripture today

Would you consider it the one true Church?

Who says what is against scripture?