The Church and Salvation

In this entry, I would like to discuss the much debated dogma stating "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" - outside the Church there is no salvation.
Many people do not understand properly the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the salvation of Non-Catholics. My intention is to outline the Catholic teaching. If there is anything wrong in my exposition, then someone should - rather must - correct me.

Building upon my Biblical exposition on the necessity of being a formal member of the Church (to be found here: http://papsttreu.blogspot.com/2009/12/jesus-yes-church-no.html ), I now intend to show the traditional belief of the Church regarding the matter of salvation outside the Church:

Part I: ordinary means of salvation:

St. Irenaeus (a.D. 130 - 202):
"The Church is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them . . . . We hear it declared of the unbelieving and the blinded of this world that they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come . . . . Resist them in defense of the only true and life giving faith, which the Church has received from the Apostles and imparted to her sons."

Origen (a.D. 185 - 254):
"If someone from this people wants to be saved, let him come into this house so that he may be able to attain his salvation. . . . Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: Outside of this house, that is, outside of the Church, no one is saved; for, if anyone should go out of it, he is guilty of his own death" (Homilies on Joshua 3:5 [A.D. 250]).

St. Cyprian of Carthage:
"Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress [a schismatic church] is separated from the promises of the Church, nor will he that forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is an alien, a worldling, and an enemy. He cannot have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 6, 1st ed. [A.D. 251]).

"Let them not think that the way of life or salvation exists for them, if they have refused to obey the bishops and priests, since the Lord says in the book of Deuteronomy: ‘And any man who has the insolence to refuse to listen to the priest or judge, whoever he may be in those days, that man shall die’ [Deut. 17:12]. And then, indeed, they were killed with the sword . . . but now the proud and insolent are killed with the sword of the Spirit, when they are cast out from the Church. For they cannot live outside, since there is only one house of God, and there can be no salvation for anyone except in the Church" (Letters 61[4]:4 [A.D. 253]).

"When we say, ‘Do you believe in eternal life and the remission of sins through the holy Church?’ we mean that remission of sins is not granted except in the Church" (ibid., 69[70]:2 [A.D. 253]).

Lactantius:
"It is, therefore, the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth; this, the domicile of faith; this, the temple of God. Whoever does not enter there or whoever does not go out from there, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. . . . Because, however, all the various groups of heretics are confident that they are the Christians and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, let it be known that this is the true Church, in which there is confession and penance and which takes a health-promoting care of the sins and wounds to which the weak flesh is subject" (Divine Institutes 4:30:11–13 [A.D. 307]).

St. Jerome (a.D. 347 - 420):
"Heretics bring sentence upon themselves since they by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation. Between heresy and schism there is this difference: that heresy involves perverse doctrine, while schism separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with the bishop. Nevertheless, there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church" (Commentary on Titus 3:10–11 [A.D. 386]).

St. Augustine (a.D. 354 - 430):
"No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the Name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church."

St. Fulgentius (a.D. 468 - 533):
"Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only pagans, but also Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Pope St. Gregory the Great (reigned a.D. 590 - 604):
"The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in Her and asserts that all who are outside of Her will not be saved."

St. Francis of Assisi (a.D. 1182 - 1226):
"All who have not believed that Jesus Christ was really the Son of God are doomed. Also, all who see the Sacrament of the Body of Christ and do not believe it is really the most holy Body and Blood of the Lord . . . these also are doomed!"

St. Thomas Aquinas (a.D. 1226 - 1274):
"There is no entering into salvation outside the Catholic Church, just as in the time of the Flood there was not salvation outside the Ark, which denotes the Church."

St. Robert Bellarmine (a.D. 1542 - 1621):
"Outside the Church there is no salvation...therefore in the symbol (Apostles Creed) we join together the Church with the remission of sins: 'I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins"...For this reason the Church is compared to the Ark of Noah, because just as during the deluge, everyone perished who was not in the ark, so now those perish who are not in the Church."

St. Louis Marie de Montfort (a.D. 1673 - 1716):
"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes."

St. Alphonsus Maria de Legouri (a.D. 1696 - 1787):
"All the misfortunes of unbelievers spring from too great an attachment to the things of life. This sickness of heart weakens and darkens the understanding, and leads to eternal ruin. If they would try to heal their hearts by purging them of their vices, they would soon receive light, which would show them the necessity of joining the Catholic Church, where alone is salvation. We should constantly thank the Lord for having granted us the gift of the true Faith, by associating us with the children of the Holy Catholic Church ... How many are the infidels, heretics, and schismatics who do not enjoy the happiness of the true Faith! Earth is full of them and they are all lost!"


Let us continue with the solemn definitions - i.e. dogmatic - of the Catholic Church:

Pope Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council (a.D. 1215):
"There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved."

Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam (a.D. 1302):
"We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Pope Eugene IV in the Bull Cantate Domino (a.D. 1441):
"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire 'which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her... No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."


All the previous citations demonstrate the Church's teaching on the ordinary means of salvation: that it is absolutely necessary to enter into the Catholic Church in order to be saved. Thus it is taught by the Second Vatican Council that “whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ, would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved” (Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 14).

The Church is thus to be understood as the "universal sacrament of salvation" (CCC 774 - 776).

"The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men." (CCC 780)


Part II: extraordinary means of salvation:

Does all this therefore mean that anyone who happens to not be a Catholic is therefore certainly doomed?

The Christian dogma of "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" in its traditional sense contains a provision: that those who are invincibly ignorant may be saved despite their not being formal members of the Catholic Church here on earth.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
"To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. the Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. the Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.³³⁴

"Outside the Church there is no salvation" (CCC 845)

And in CCC 846:

"How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?³³⁵ Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.^336"

And now comes the provision in CCC 847:

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.³³⁷

The provision is that those who through no fault of their own know not the Gospel of Christ or His Church - i.e. the invinsibly ignorant thereof - but still try to live a God-pleasing life to the best of their abilities in accordance to their conscience , may be saved.

It is taught by the Second Vatican Council that “those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience” (Lumen Gentium, 16).

In the past there arose a controversy with the rigorist Father Feeney who taught that absolutely noone - regardless of his knowledge or ignorance of the Gospel and of the Church - may be saved unless he becomes a formal member of the Catholic Church.

The controversy was ended by a clarification from the Holy See:
“In the aftermath of the controversy, the Archbishop of Boston, Richard Cushing, received a letter of clarification from the Holy Office. This letter, dated August 8, 1949, is important for its explanation of the necessity of the Church: she is necessary for salvation by divine command, not by intrinsic necessity. The Church, as Christ’s mystical body, is the sole ark of salvation, but direct, formal membership in her through the sacraments is only the ordinary means of salvation. In other words, knowledge of the Church and of her Founder is required of anyone for whom is to be considered necessary for salvation.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, p.862, Reverend Peter Stravinskas, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., Huntington, Indiana, 1991)

Thus, without knowledge neither of the Gospel of Christ and of the Catholic Church, one cannot be judged to be doomed.

Examples of this teaching:

Pope Pius IX in Singulari Quidem (a.D. 1856):
"This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God. Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control."

Thus the correct understand of the dogma "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" is explained by the following words:

Pope Pius IX in Quanto Conficiamus Moerore (a.D. 1863):
"Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching."

"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments."


Warnings:

There are those who would distort the official teaching of the Church so as to claim that all Non-Catholic Christians will be saved. This is an error since we know that these separated Christians are:
a) not ignorant of the Gospel of Christ
b) not all invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church

In a sense, one could say that this provision is more likely to apply to Non-Christians than to other Christians - who through their knowledge of the Gospel will be judged by stricter standards (ref.: Luke 12:48; James 1:22-27; 1 John 2:4).

A Non-Catholic Christian who therefore knows of the Gospel and of the necessity of the Catholic Church, but obstinately refuses to enter into her, will not be saved.

Some people have problems with such statements so as to claim that I - by making such statements - were "behaving in a heretical manner" or "being a dick". Furthermore, certain people would claim that I am not allowed to make such statements as I am "not God". Some would even go as far as to say that they would "never join the Catholic Church" because of my behaviour.

Now here is what I have to say:

1) I am fully aware of the fact that I am not God. And that Judgement is God's prerogative. While indeed I may not claim to know who specifically will be in hell - since I know not the hearts of men - we can see in Christian Tradition that it is not wrong to outline the ordinary means of salvation and that according to the dogmas of the Church, the sins of certain people may be judged as being worthy of damnation.

If one does not think this is true, then I would invite people to read e.g. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

"Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. "

Certain sins exclude the possibility of salvation. While I cannot say that a person who has committed adultery in his life will definitely perish - since I know not if he will repent or not - I can say that those who persist in this sin and refuse to repent and be forgiven by means of the sacrament of reconciliation will perish.

Similary one can say that unless someone repents, he will perish (ref.: Luke 13:3 & 5).

2) The provision to "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" is not to be understood in terms of every Non-Christian being invincibly ignorant of the Gospel or the Church of Christ. We live in a time wherein information is very easy to gather. And I find it plausible to assume that there may only be very few people who have never heard of the Gospel of Christ or of His Church. Thus, those who say that they "just do not care" about the claims of the Gospel and of the Church are already disqualified from being invincibly ignorant.

Christ Himself did not teach that those who closed themselves to the Gospel would be saved.

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet. Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." (Matthew 10:14-15)

3) Another very harmful attitude is that of rejecting the message because of the way the message is conveyed or because of disdain towards the messenger. Such attitude is harmful because:

° the truth of a message does not depend upon its way of communication.
° the truth of a message does not depend upon our liking or disliking of the messenger
° with regards to Christian doctrine: rejecting a doctrine because of disliking the way it is conveyed or because of disliking the messenger does not excuse one's rejection of truth

Thus, those who tell me they would "never become a Catholic" because of my behaviour, are doing more harm to themselves than to anyone else.

I do admit that I do not always behave the way I should. There is no excuse. I apologize to everyone who has been offended by my "cold" way of communicating doctrine to people. However, I do not apologize for the orthodox Christian doctrine that I convey. I find it more important to adhere to orthodox doctrine than to "please" everyone I speak to. And since we are commanded to love God above all, problems will arise, and I do not value such "peace" over Divine Truth, that is Jesus Christ.
If you find such attitude to also be appalling, I address you to Matthew 10:34-37.

Furthermore, to reject the Church because one rejects the behaviour of certain people who are formally within the Church or due to disdain towards certain individuals within the Church means that one judges the Church by one's perception of the morality of those within the Church.
This is wrong because this links to the heresy of Montanism and Donatism and because even from within the Church, there will be those who will not be perfect (ref.: Acts 20:29-39).



I will try my best to follow what Pope John Paul II taught:
"The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, "the way, and the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth? The Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae attributes to human dignity the quest for truth, "especially in what concerns God and his Church",33 and adherence to truth's demands. A "being together" which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God who offers his communion and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart."
(Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint §18 "The fundamental importance of doctrine")

"Even so, doctrine needs to be presented in a way that makes it understandable to those for whom God himself intends it."
(Pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint §19)


Last but not least: there are those who intend to "pick and choose" what they accept as being "essential to salvation" by their own standards. Thus, while some might vehemently oppose the Christian Dogma of "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus", the same could be in total agreement to the teaching that there is no salvation to be found than in Christ: thus indirectly condemning all those who are not Christians.
Furthermore, while someone may think that that "belonging to Church is not necessary for salvation", the same could believe that those who claim to be Christians but are Sodomites will not inherit the Kingdom of God (ref.: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10), i.e. that these will be doomed.

The pattern we can see here is that oftentimes, such people create a list of "essentials" which would make possible their own salvation and also that of the people they like. What we thus experience is the alteration not of the way one conveys Christian doctrine, but of Christian doctrine itself. Instead of being fashioned after orthodox doctrine, i.e. the Truth, one seeks to fashion doctrine according to one's own emotions or desires.

Such an attitude seems to me as a type of idolatry: placing one's desires or emotions above the truth revealed to us by God and safeguarded by His Church until the end of times. And with regards to such people, I claim that those guilty of altering the truth to fit their desires will not be saved unless they repent and turn from their wicked ways.

If you think that this is hard to believe in, then I remind you of those who placed their personal understanding above the words of the Christ:

"Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?" (John 6:61)

and then:

"After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him." (John 6:67)

Thus we are taught:

"Take heed to thyself and to doctrine: be earnest in them. For in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee." (1 Timothy 4:16)

And:

"Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears" (2 Timothy 4:2-3)

Jesus - yes; Church - no?

"I believe in and love Jesus Christ. I do not need any 'Church' or denomination!"

While the above statement may not be an exact quotation, it does reflect upon an ideology which not few Christians believe in. This ideology is about an individualistic "Christian" life; this means that Christians who follow this ideology think that all that is necessary for them to "be saved" is to "love Jesus". The problem with their concept is that they understand this "loving of Jesus" as excluding the Church which Christ has established: it is one which excludes the visible communion of Christians.

In this text, I would like to show why one cannot truly claim to love Jesus when one rejects His Church at the same time. Now, I understand if one will object by saying he does not believe the Catholic Church to be the Church of Christ. However, such an opposition to the Catholic Church does not justify the altogether rejection of the belief that "one cannot have God as Father, who does not have the church as Mother” (St. Cyprian of Carthage; De ecclesiae unitate, 6).

Furthermore, I would like to warn against those who "profess that they know God: but in their works they deny him" (Titus 1:16). It is thus possible to claim to follow God in theory, but to do the opposite in practice.


In my exposition, I will assume the following:
1) that he who claims to love Jesus accepts the Holy Bible as being God's Word
2) that he who claims to love Jesus follows what the Bible teaches

At first let us establish that the greatest commandments consist of loving God above all else and loving one's neighbour as oneself:

from the Gospel of Mark, chapter 12:

28 And there came one of the scribes that had heard them reasoning together, and seeing that he had answered them well, asked him which was the first commandment of all. 29 And Jesus answered him: The first commandment of all is, Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy God is one God. 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like to it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these.

But what does it mean "to love God"? How does one "love God"? My claim is that we love God by obedience. To back this claim, I will cite the following passages:

"If you love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15)

"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." (John 14:21)

"Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." (John 14:23)

"He that loveth me not, keepeth not my words. And the word which you have heard, is not mine; but the Father's who sent me." (John 14:24)

"If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father's commandments, and do abide in his love." (John 15:10)

And to further show that such obedience is necessary for salvation:

"Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 7:21)


Now, as I have said before, it is important that the Christian saying he loves Jesus accepts the Holy Bible as God's Word, i.e. what we are taught to follow in it, is what God wills. Thus, to refuse to follow a command would be an offense against the love of God.

Now, all I have to do is to demonstrate that the Christian faith is one of communion: "rugged individualism", i.e. non-affiliation to the Church, is not only unChristian, it is ANTI-Christian.

Fact 1: Christ Jesus established a visible Church and this Church is one:

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)

Jesus speaks of His Church in the singular. It will be built upon a visible rock: Peter (Kepha). Thus, Jesus established a visible and singular Church.

That the Church is meant to be one is expressed by the following words also:

"And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." (John 10:16)

The unity of the Church is also expressed by the following promise of indefectibility:

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)

"And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." (Matthew 12:25)

Since the Church is the "house of God" and the "pillar and ground of truth" ( 1 Timothy 3:15) , it cannot be likened unto any earthly kingdoms which will not stand.

And God cannot have willed the division amongst Christians since "God is not the God of dissension, but of peace" (1 Corinthians 14:33)


Fact 2: The Church is Christ's flock and one is a sheep by obedience:

We know that the Church is also called the "flock" since Christians are also termed as Christ's "sheep"; wherefore Christ calls Himself the "Good Sheperd":

"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep." (John 10:11)

One is part of the flock through loving Jesus, i.e. God, by obedience:

"I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me. As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep." (John 10:14-15)

Christ died for His sheep: Christ died for those who obey Him: thus, His sheep are those who obey Him:

"Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you." (John 15:13-14)

Fact 3: The Church has a visible hierarchy which we owe obedience:

Jesus Christ, the Good Sheperd, entrusted His flock, i.e. the Church, unto a visible leader, Peter:

from the Gospel of John, chapter 21:

15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

That "feeding the sheep" is an expression of supreme authority can be seen from the Old Testament wherein it is God Himself who "feeds the sheep":

"I will feed my sheep: and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord God." (Ezechiel 34:15)

And promising the coming of Christ, the High Priest of the New and Eternal Covenant, God declared:

"AND I WILL SET UP ONE SHEPHERD OVER THEM, and he shall feed them, even my servant David: he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd." (Ezechiel 34:23)

What does it therefore mean when Christ appoints Peter to "feed His sheep"? Christ Jesus makes Peter His visible Vicar: the visible head of the one flock, of the Church. To thus deny this, is to go against the very words of the Lord Jesus Christ. He who does not follow Him, does not love Him.

Further examples of hierarchy and obedience:

"Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops (elders), to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." (Acts 20:28)

"Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you." (Hebrews 13:17)

Obedience to prelates can only exist within a structured system, i.e. a Church, wherein there is a system of hierarchy. The "rugged individualist" cannot follow this Biblical command.

That disobedience to the human authorities of the Church is a grave sin is taught also in the New Testament which warns against the "the contradiction of Core" (Jude 1:7).

What did Core do?

"His sons, were Namuel and Dathan and Abiron. These are Dathan and Abiron the princes of the people, that rose against Moses and Aaron in the sedition of Core, when they rebelled against the Lord" (Numbers 26:9)

The original story is in Numbers 16:

1 And behold Core the son of Isaar, the son of Caath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiron the sons of Eliab, and Hon the son of Pheleth of the children of Ruben, 2 Rose up against Moses, and with them two hundred and fifty others of the children of Israel, leading men of the synagogue, and who in the time of assembly were called by name. 3 And when they had stood up against Moses and Aaron, they said: Let it be enough for you, that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is among them: Why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord?

Four things are important to note:

1) The sin of these people who were so greatly punished by the Lord (Numbers 26:10) was that of disobedience. They rose up against the leadership of Moses and Aaron as instituted by the Lord.

2) This disobedience against the earthly hierarchy set up by the Lord is understood as a rebellion against God Himself (Numbers 26:9).

3) The question "why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord" denoting a certain apathy towards the hierarchy of the Church and a false understanding of equality is the exact same attitude we get from protestants nowadays who criticize and oppose the Catholic Church and from those who claim to love God, but reject His Church.

4) The obedience to the earthly authorities of God's people taught in the Old Testament IS still required by God from Christians. Otherwise, we would not see this condemnation of Core in the New Testament.

That disobedience towards the Church is a grave sin is expressed already by the following words of Jesus:

"And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." (Matthew 18:17)

That Jesus here speaks of the visible Church is clear from the following verse in which He speaks of the "binding and loosing" authority (Matthew 18:18), which He has first promised in singular manner unto Peter, the Vicar of the Good Sheperd (Matthew 16:19).

A further reference to obedience to the Church is:

"We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us. He that is not of God, heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." ( 1 John 4:6)

Thus, if one chooses to refuse due obedience to the Church, one is to be considered as the "heathen and the publican": no longer as part of the Church, as the flock, to whom salvation is promised.


Fact 4: The Church is a Eucharistic Communion:

It is taught that "we being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another" (Romans 12:5). Thus, the Church is indeed one. But how is this unity effected? Some may claim that the unity of the Church is "invisible" and that even the "rugged individualist" who refuses visible membership to the Church is necessatily part of the "invisible Church".

Now, despite the fact that the aforementioned Biblical passages totally contradict such a position and that such a position cannot be Biblically defended, the unity of the Church is effected by means of the Holy Communion:

In the first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 10, we read:

16 The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? 17 For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.

Hence, the unity of the Church is effected by a visible sacrament: that of Holy Communion. How does a "rugged individualist" partake in this sacrament? He cannot.

But the Lord taught in the Gospel of John, chapter 6:

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

Obviously, some of the Jews could not accept in faith what the Lord said:

53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

But Jesus, far from changing his statement, reaffirmed His teaching:

54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

Obviously, there were those who could not believe what Jesus said. Perhaps because it sounded "irrational". Thus, we have an example of one of the first, if not the first , schisms:

67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.

And as evident from the example from the New Testament, Christians have since then followed Christ's command regarding the sacrament of Holy Communion and does celebrate the Holy Mass on Sundays:
"And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow: and he continued his speech until midnight." (Acts 20:7)


Tree Analogy:


"Every branch in me, that beareth not fruit, he will take away: and every one that beareth fruit, he will purge it, that it may bring forth more fruit." (John 15:2)

"If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth." (John 15:6)

Thus, he who does not "bear fruit" will be damned. Wherefore, it is necessary to remain attached to the Christ, in order to be able to even bear fruit since Jesus said "for without me you can do nothing" (John 15:5)

I would like to use the "tree" since it is referenced in Matthew 13:31-32:

"Another parable he proposed unto them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field. Which is the least indeed of all seeds; but when it is grown up, it is greater than all herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come, and dwell in the branches thereof."

If we imagine the Church of Christ to be as a tree, we can imagine Christ as being the root which gives life unto the rest: it is the firm foundation of the tree. The trunk we can imagine to be Peter, whom Christ has elevated to the position of His Vicar, the visible tender of the flock. Christ as the root is invisible, Peter as the trunk is visible. The bigger branches directly attached to the trunk are all the prelates of the Church in communion with Peter and thus to Christ. As the Holy Spirit proceeds in no other way than from the Father and from/through the Son, so also the authority of the prelates of the Church proceeds from God in no other way than though Peter. The smaller branches, twigs and leaves symbolize the laity: all the members of the Church. We see that, as long as they remain attached to the bigger branches, and these to the trunk, and the trunk to the root, there will be fruit. However, if a branch is detached from the trunk, that branch will wither and die. This branch signifies all those who refuse to enter into the visible communion of the Catholic Church.


Conclusion:

With all the previous information, one cannot claim to turly love God while rejecting His Church because God wills that a Christian is obedient to His Church.
Therefore it is true to say that "one cannot have God as Father, who does not have the church as Mother".

He who rejects the Church, disobeys Jesus. He who disobeys the Christ, cannot truly love Him. And he who does not love Jesus, is damned:

"If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha." (1 Corinthians 16:22)

responding to AnglicanApologist72

Anglicanapologist71 (a youtuber and Anglican apologist) whom I had addressed in my essay on the Anglican position concerning Purgatory has made a respone.
First, I would like to thank him for taking the time to read and respond to my article.

Then I will address his response. Citations from his blog will be in red.

"First, the conception of purgatory in the 39 Articles is not simply the intermediate state between death and judgment where one experiences separation of body and soul (death), but further, the intermediate state between death and judgement where one is purified/purged from sins from the past life, so that this person may enter the kingdom of God. I, as an Anglican, affirm the first conception, which is not the "fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God" that the 39 Articles speak of, and I deny the latter conception, which is the conception of Purgatory repudiated by the 39 Articles."

Thus, what Anglicanapologist72 denies is the idea that "one is purified/purged from sins from the past life, so that this person may enter the kingdom of God".

He continues:

"Not really, Blackcappa. What it means is that at some point in Church history, the doctrine was vainly invented, whether after 1054 or maybe in the 6th century AD. As we will see, throughout this article, the Romish doctine of Purgatory evolved over time. Gregory the I is the first Church leader to affirm, as an article of faith, the Romish doctrine of Purgatory. No significant leader beforehand had fully believed and accepted it as truth. Blackcappa proceeds to try and show that prayer for the dead proves the doctrine of Purgatory, yet I fully disagree with his reasoning. Let's observe his citations."

"The Romish doctrine evolved over time": It would perhaps be helpful to note that we Catholics do believe in a development of doctrine: i.e.: we do not expect what is explicitly formulated in a dogma to be explicit before such formulation. A short example would be the dogma of the hypostatic union. I doubt Anglicanapologist72 would declare any dogma until the 7th century to be "vainly invented". Why? Because he claims to follow these first 7 Ecumenical Councils: even if one could challenge every single one of them - as had been done before they were formulated. As a matter of fact: many dogmas were formulated in response to arising heresies. Praying for the dead and the belief that such prayers do help them is a Christian belief eversince.


AnglicanApologist72 then continues to analyze the citations I have provided. Instead of responding to each of his analyses, I would like to check whether his anti-Catholic interpretation does work:

"The doctrine of Purgatory is not only unbiblical, but it is repugnant to the word of God because God's words are not to be added to. Of course, I don't think the doctrine of Purgatory is heresy, but adding to God's words is most certainly repugnant and should not be done. Since Blackcappa has put forth his case for Purgatory and against the 39 Articles on the matter, I shall now put forth my case against purgatory itself and not only against his arguments. The earliest and apostolic belief was that death itself finished off the purging of sin, which hence, occurs in this life and at death. The intermediate state was not believed to be a state of purging (of course until the time of Augustine - Gregory), but rather, a state of looking to the joys of the resurrection for the righteous, and a state of torture for the wicked. How else can you explain these statements made by the Fathers?"

Justin Martyr: The souls of the godly remain in a better place, the unjust and wicked in a worse, awaiting the day of judgment (Dial. p. 223 ; Conf. Quaest. et Respons. ad Orthodox. Justino Imputat. qu. 5).

Irenaeus: Each sort of Men receive, even before the judgment, their due place of abode (Lib. II 63).

Tertullian: (Paradise is described) as a place of divine pleasantness, destined to receive the spirits of the just (Apol. c. 47).

Cyprian: Do not think death the same thing to the just and the unjust. The just are called to a refereshing, the unjust are taken away into torment; speedily safety is given to the faithful, to the unfaithful, punishment (Cyp. De Mortalitate, p. 161, Oxon 1682).


Let me address the following Fathers then.

The first quote from St. Justin Martyr cannot be used against the dogma of Purgatory as Purgatory is indeed a better place than the abode of the unjust (hell). Those in Purgatory are destined to heaven.

On Tertullian:

"And if we speak of Paradise, the place of heavenly bliss appointed to receive the spirits of the saints, severed from the knowledge of this world by that fiery zone as by a sort of enclosure, the Elysian plains have taken possession of their faith. "

How does this contradict or even refute the dogma of Purgatory? We affirm that heaven indeed is the destination of the spirits of the saints.

Tertullian also made the following statements:

That allegory of the Lord [Matt. 5:25-26] . . . is extremely clear and simple in its meaning . . . [beware lest as] a transgressor of your agreement, before God the judge . . . and lest this judge deliver you over to the angel who is to execute the sentence, and he commit you to the prison of hell, out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection. What can be a more fitting sense than this? What a truer interpretation? (The Soul 35 [A.D. 210]).

"This place, the Bosom of Abraham, though not in Heaven, and yet above hell, offers the souls of the righteous an interim refreshment until the end of all things brings about the general resurrection and the final reward." (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:34, before 220 A.D.)

"Indeed she [a widow] prays for his [her husband's] soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection [Heaven]. And each year, on the anniversity of his death, she offers the Sacrifice [i.e., has a Mass said for him]." (Tertullian, On Monagomy, 212 A.D.)

AnglicanApologist72 criticized the latter citation since "we see nothing of a state where sins are purified by inflicted suffering after death and before judgment in this citation. All we see is prayer for a dead person's comfort, which gives no support of Purgatory."

How can we then harmonize the above citations with the following statement?:

"The intermediate state was not believed to be a state of purging (of course until the time of Augustine - Gregory), but rather, a state of looking to the joys of the resurrection for the righteous, and a state of torture for the wicked."

Why would one pray for the just? And it is not taught that we ought to pray for the damned: prayer would be useless for those in heaven: there is no need to console them. Prayer is useless for the damned:

The 1st Century Eastern Bishop, St. Dionysius the Aeropagite Martyr of Athens said:

"For the Hierarch, the expounder of the supremely Divine Justice, would never seek things, which were not most pleasing to the Almighty God, and divinely promised to be given by Him [Ap. C. viii. 43]. Wherefore, he does not offer these prayers over the unholy fallen asleep, not only because in this he would deviate from his office of expounder, and would presumptuously arrogate, on his own authority, a function of the Hierarchy, without being moved by the Supreme Legislator, but because he would both fail to obtain his abominable prayer, and he, not unnaturally, would hear from the just Oracle, "Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss" [Jam 4:3]." [Ecclesiatical Hierarchy 7:3:7]

Now to quote from St. Cyprian: De Mortalitate is a treatise on the hopes for salvation of a Christian. That we need not fall into despair since we expect life everlasting. It thus contrasts the destiny of the unjust who preish unto eternal damnation with the destiny of the just which is life everlasting.

It should be noted that St. Cyprian himself taught also in a more distinguished fashion:

"It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the Day of Judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord (Letters 51[55]:20 [A.D. 253])."

He is not speaking about the just and the unjust here: he obviously speaks of two types who will both attain the crown of eternal life. However, one receives the promised glory right away, while the other has to be "cleansed and long purged by fire". What is the just to be cleansed and purged from if he there is nothing unclean within him?

And there stands the claim:

"The intermediate state was not believed to be a state of purging (of course until the time of Augustine - Gregory), but rather, a state of looking to the joys of the resurrection for the righteous, and a state of torture for the wicked."

The intermediate state is not believed to be for everyone. Thus, we will find statements concerning the contrast between the Just and the Unjust, and we will find statements describing those who are Christians but still undergo the process of purification.

It is interesting that he first claims that Purgatory is an invention, but then admits that it was around as early as the 4th century. So he admits that one can indeed find this teaching in the early Church, yet rejects it. Were then the Councils after the 4th century all false since they formulated something that was not yet "set in stone" before?

To give more evidence:

St. Epiphanius of Salamis says in 375 [Panarion 75:8], "Useful too is the prayer fashioned on their [the dead's] behalf... it is useful, because in this world we often stumble either voluntarily or involuntarily."

So the reasoning behind the prayer for the dead is found in the transgressions the dead committed before their departure. Are we then to assume that such these transgressions have thus no effect whatsoever on the souls of Christians?

Then we have St. Gregory of Nyssa who says before 394 [Sermon on the Dead], "When he has quitted his body and the difference between virtue and vice is known he cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested. That same fire in others will cancel the corruption of matter, and the propensity to evil."

"till the purging fire have cleansed the stains"

Is this not clear enough?

Now I ask AnglicanApologist72: How can he harmonize these citations with the ones I provide and the fact that both Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox do believe in the efficacy of prayers for the dead?

Let us examine AnglicanApologist72's criticism of my the quotes I have provided:

To the first citation he says:

"First of all, the Acts of Paul is not an authority whatsoever, but rather, a later, apocryphal text. Yet, the citation above proves nothing of purgatory from the prayer given by Falconilla, because it says nothing of a state where one is purified from the sins of the past life, only that her mother be received by God and made just. No where is the Romish conception of Purgatory found here. Let's take a look at the next citation."

My intention was to show that it was Christian practice and not a later invention. Now indeed it does not speak of a "state of purification from the sins of the past life", but it speaks of a "transfer to the place of the just". We know that the damned cannot go to heaven. And according to the explanations of AnglicanApologist72: the just go to their respectice place and the damned to theirs. Where then is Falconilla?


On to the second criticism:

"Again, we see nothing of a state where sins are purified by inflicted suffering after death and before judgment in this citation. All we see is prayer for a dead person's comfort, which gives no support of Purgatory. Let's observe his next citation."

The same situation. But we see this:
"I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me.Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me. I saw that that place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment. And where there had been a wound, I saw a scar; and that pool which I had before seen, I saw now with its margin lowered even to the boy's navel. And one drew water from the pool incessantly, and upon its brink was a goblet filled with water; and Dinocrates drew near and began to drink from it, and the goblet did not fail. And when he was satisfied, he went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of children, and I awoke. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment."

So we have here a story about a boy who first is seen to be suffering, then prayers are offered for him and the conclusion is that he "was translated from the place of punishment".

What state or place is this? If he were "looking to the joys of the resurrection for the righteous", why did he suffer? If he were already in the abode of the unjust, how could he be moved away from it?

How can AnglicanApologist72 harmonize these texts with his claims?

to continue:

"And what suggests that the purification of the believer's sins after baptism are in the intermediate state, necessarily? Nothing. The purification Clement speaks of, is death itself- the most dreaded of our torments; and after death, one is passed into a state of less suffering, not more suffering. This is what Clement is saying. Consider Blackcappa's next citation."

I can follow the idea of death being the "non plus ultra" in terms of "torment": however, I find it hard ot imagine this taking place the moment we die:
"He is tortured then still more— not yet or not quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is also ashamed of his transgressions."

On Tertullians treatise on Monogamy, AnglicanApologist72 says:

"Again, like with the first two citations, we see nothing of a state where sins are purified by inflicted suffering after death and before judgment in this citation. All we see is prayer for a dead person's comfort, which gives no support of Purgatory."

See his exposition on the Soul as quoted above. And then we must again ask ourself what to pray for when there is only but joy for the just after death?

"Indeed,she prays for his soul,and requests refreshment for him meanwhile"

Refreshment from "a state of looking to the joys of the resurrection for the righteous"? This sounds a bit odd.

He proceeds to say:

"We know that God knows the future and who will be in the kingdom of God and who won't be. We don't know the future. And that is why Cyril so strongly encourages prayer for the saints. In a way, they help the saints' salvation, only in the same way that if you prayed for a friend of your's who is ill to get better, you would have helped him get better. Therefore, prayer for the saints is not how Roman Catholics have made it out to be, that is, a meritorious system. It is rather, an acknowledgment that we don't know everything and God does. In sum, the prayers for the dead in the early church do not show the Roman conception of Purgatory to be correct."

The analogy to the sick friend is quite interesting: because when we pray for someone who is sick, we assume that sickness is evil and ask God for His help to alleviate this evil. What is the "evil" that a saint must be freed from when he is already experiencing the rewards to come?
It does not make sense.

Instead the correct intrepretation of the passage is that we pray for the departed so that in case they are still stained by the effects of sin, they may be granted mercy by God. Thus St. Cyril of Jerusalem gives the following analogy:

"For I know that many say, what is a soul profited, which departs from this world either with sins, or without sins, if it be commemorated in the prayer? For if a king were to banish certain who had given him offence, and then those who belong to them should weave a crown and offer it to him on behalf of those under punishment, would he not grant a remission of their penalties? In the same way we, when we offer to Him our supplications for those who have fallen asleep, though they be sinners, weave no crown, but offer up Christ sacrificed for our sins, propitiating our merciful God for them as well as for ourselves."

It's crystal clear.


"What Blackcappa forgot to mention was that while Origen believed in this state of purification one must undergo before entering into the Kingdom of God, he did NOT believe this purification occurred in the intermediate state between death and judgment. Origen, as Bishop Edward Harold Browne notes, believed all must undergo the fires of purging at the day of judgment, not in the intermediate state between death and judgment. Blackcappa proceeds to cite Augustine of Hippo."

With respect to 1 Corinthians 3:11-15:

While this passage presents considerable difficulty, it is regarded by many of the Fathers and theologians as evidence for the existence of an intermediate state in which the dross of lighter transgressions will be burnt away, and the soul thus purified will be saved. This, according to Bellarmine (De Purg., I, 5), is the interpretation commonly given by the Fathers and theologians; and he cites to this effect:

• St. Ambrose (commentary on the text, and Sermo xx in Ps. cxvii),
• St. Jerome, (Comm. in Amos, c. iv),
• St. Augustine (Enarration on Psalm 37),
• St. Gregory (Dial., IV, xxxix), and
• Origen (Hom. vi in Exod.).

See also St. Thomas, "Contra Gentes,", IV, 91. For a discussion of the exegetical problem, see Atzberger, "Die christliche Eschatologie", p. 275.


Continuing:

"Augustine is probably Blackcapp's closest companion in this fight for the validity of Purgatory. But unfortunately for Blackcappa, Augustine is not dogmatic about this doctrine of Purgatory at all. He says elsewhere, concerning the notion that there is a purging fire after death of sins committed in the first life, that "[He] will not argue against it, for perhaps it is true (De. Civit. Dei, xxi. 26, Tom. vii. p.649)". He also says at least, that "it is not incredible (Enchiridion ad. Laurent. Cap. 69, Tom. vi. p. 222)". Augustine thinks Purgatory is probable, nothing more. "He does not affirm it as an article of faith" as Bishop Browne words it. It is a probable conjecture in the eyes of Augustine, yet contains some speculation. This is why Augustine cannot be used to strictly support the Purgatorial belief as a dogma in the early church. Blackcappa comes to the era in history, around 200 years after Augustine, where Purgatory is transformed into a dogma and enforced by the Church of the West. He quotes Caesar of Arles, who is rather vague, but gives a good hint of it..."

Let us turn to another text from St. Augustine wherein he says in 413 [Faith and Works 1:1 in PL 40:197-198],
"If the baptized person fulfills the obligations demanded of a Christian, he does well. If he does not--provided he keeps the faith, without which he would perish forever--no matter in what sin or impurity remains, he will be saved, as it were, by fire; as one who has built on the foundation, which is Christ, not gold, silver, and precious stones, but wood, hay straw, that is, not just and chasted works but wicked and unchaste works."

Does this sound like mere speculation?

"He quotes Caesar of Arles, who is rather vague, but gives a good hint of it..."

"If we neither give thanks to God in tribulations nor redeem our own sins by good works,we shall have to remain in that purgatorian fire as long as it takes for those above-mentioned lesser sins to be consumed like wood and straw and hay." Ceasar of Arles,Sermon 179(104):2(A.D. 542),in JUR,III:283

What is vague about this?

...and Blackcappa quotes the first to actually state the Romish doctrine of Purgatory as a dogmatic doctrine of the Church. "Each one will be presented to the Judge exactly as he was when he departed this life. Yet, there must be a cleansing fire before judgement,because of some minor faults that may remain to be purged away. Does not Christ,the Truth, say that if anyone blasphemes against the Holy Spirit he shall not be forgiven 'either in this world or in the world to come'(Mt. 12:32)? From this statement we learn that some sins can be forgiven in this world and some in the world to come. For, if forgiveness is refused for a particular sin, we conclude logically that it is granted for others. This must apply, as I said, to slight transgressions." Gregory the Great[regn. A.D. 590-604],Dialogues,4:39(A.D. 594),in FC,39:248

Is AnglicanApologist72 then saying that the doctrine of Purgatory has been declared a dogma in a.D. 594? This is before the Great Schism! So why does he reject it?

And to his interpretation:

"I shall comment on Gregory's interpretation of Matthew 12:32 to support a purging of sin after death and judgment. Blasphemy/rejection of the Holy Spirit not being forgiven "either in this world or the world to come" is a reference to the infinite amount of time the sin will not be forgiven. That does not mean some sins will be forgiven in the world to come, but that some sins are not to be unforgiven for eternity. Let us not abuse logic here."

So you simply declare Pope St. Gregory the Great as "being mistaken" and of "abusing logic"?

Nor in the world to come... From these words St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, lib. 21, c. 13) and St. Gregory (Dialog., 4, c. 39) gather, that some sins may be remitted in the world to come; and, consequently, that there is a purgatory or a middle place.

I am not arrogant enough to declare these Saints to be wrong due to the novel teachings of the Anglican community.

"Now, Blackcappa spends a great amount of time later in his article defending the invocation of the saints. As I noted previously, the "invocation of the saints" repudiated in the 39 Articles, is not simply giving honor and adoration to the saints, as in acknowledging their good works and their nature of devotion to God, but further, a form of worship to the saints as if they are our protectors, our saviors, our strength, etc. I think Blackcappa, the 39 Articles, and I agree on this, that the saints are by all means not to be worshiped, but of course, it is permitted that they be honored in a suitable way. Near the end of his article, Blackcappa writes this."

We do not worship Saints, nor Angels, nor any other being aside from God alone.

An example of Invocation is this:

St. Gregory Nazianzen says in 379 [Orations 24:11 in PG 35:1181A], "Recalling these and other circumstances and imploring the Virgin Mary to bring her [the Virgin Justina] assistance, since she, too, was a virgin and had been in danger, she entrusted herself to the remedy of fasting and sleeping on the ground."


"The doctrine of Purgatory is not only unbiblical, but it is repugnant to the word of God because God's words are not to be added to. Of course, I don't think the doctrine of Purgatory is heresy, but adding to God's words is most certainly repugnant and should not be done."

It has already been established that the dogma has Scriptural basis and thus not repugnant to the Word of God.

Purgatory

This extract will be about a defense of the Christian dogma of Purgatory against the false teachings of the Anglicans.

I believe that one article from the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion should suffice to demonstrate the Anglican position on Purgatory which explicitly rejects Catholic teaching. It has to be noted though that the Thirty-Nine Articles are no longer viewed as being normative for all branches of Anglicanism, wherefore this will be a treaty against those who still hold to these erroneous beliefs.

The twenty-second article states:

XXII. Of Purgatory.
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.



I intend to refute the following claims:
1) The Catholic doctrine concerning Purgatory is "vainly invented".
2) The Catholic doctrine concerning purgatory is "grounded upon no warranty of Scripture".
3) The Catholic doctrine concerning the Invocation of Saints is "vainly invented".
4) The Catholic doctrine concerning the Invocation of Saints is "grounded upon no warranty of Scripture".
5) The Catholic doctrines concerning Purgatory and the Invocation of Saints are "repugnant to the Word of God".


Some may notice that I did not include the part about the "worshipping and adoration of Images and Relics". I do not think I need to address lies. We venerate Images and Relics, but do not worship them. I condemn this part of the article as being indeed "repugnant to the Word of God" who declared: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" (Exodus 20:16; Deuteronomy 5:20; Matthew 19:18; Luke 18:20; Marl 10:19; Romans 13:9).

Before, I proceed, I shall take the word of an Anglican apologist (AnglicanApologist72 on youtube) claiming that the "Roman Catholic Church was founded in 1054 a.D.". This claim is understandable since to claim that the Roman Catholic Church has been around since 33 a.D. would mean that the (Roman) Catholic Church IS the Church that Christ Himself had established and unto which He promised indefectibility (Matthew 16:18) and perpetual existence and His guidance until the end of times (Matthew 28:20). This would mean that the Anglicans have broken away from the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church, and that there is thus no justification for their schism. Thus, it is not uncommon for Anglicans to speak of the "Anglican Catholic Church", the "Roman Catholic Church", and the "Orthodox Catholic Church": supposedly these three are "branches" or "fragments" of the once visibly united pre-1054 Catholic Church. To AnglicanApologist72 therefore, the "Roman Catholic Church", i.e. the Catholic Church in communion with the Roman Pontiff, the Pope, only came into existence after 1054 a.D. (without considering the fact that the schism between the West and East was finally consummated in the 15th century: the excommunications of 1054 were of individuals against individuals, not the Churches). This false assertion of his will be very useful in the refutation of the Anglican position.

Note: it must be observed, that I take for granted that what "AnglicanApologist72" says is indeed conform to what the Anglican community teaches. Given the fact that there are so many different branches with varying ideas, I apologize in advance is my argumentation is based upon a false exposition of the Anglican position (granted there is a normative one regarding this issue).


We can now proceed with the refutation of the Anglican claims:

in response to claim 1:

The 22nd article claims that the "Romish Catholic Doctrine" concerning Purgatory is "vainly invented."

This claim suggests that the Roman Catholic Church invented post-1054 a.D. a novel and false doctrine called "Purgatory". If this is true, we should not find anything pertaining to Purgatory prior to 1054 a.D..
Before we continue, let us first find out what the Roman Catholic Church teaches with respect to the dogma of Purgatory:

To summarize what the Roman Catholic Church dogmatically formulated regarding Purgatory, I cite an Eastern Catholic:

"In the Catholic understanding, only two points are necessary dogma concerning "purgatory": 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state.

The Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches agree with the Latin Church fully on both of these points. In practice, we routinely celebrate Divine Liturgies for the dead, and offer numerous prayers on their behalf. We would not do so if we did not agree with the above two dogmatic points."

To quote even from the Ecumenical Council of Trent:

Session XXV:
DECREE CONCERNING PURGATORY. "Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught, in sacred councils, and very recently in this oecumenical Synod, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, [Page 233] but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar; the holy Synod enjoins on bishops that they diligently endeavour that the sound doctrine concerning Purgatory, transmitted by the holy Fathers and sacred councils, be believed, maintained, taught, and every where proclaimed by the faithful of Christ."


The presentation of the Eastern Catholic should already suffice as a refutation of the Anglican claim: since both the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches agree on a transitional state of purification after death and the efficacy of prayers for the souls departed, this doctrine, this dogma, cannot be a post-1054 Roman Catholic invention.

Though, I woud like to still provide for more evidence which will demonstrate that it is indeed a Christian practice to pray for the deceased since there was a belief in such a transitional state of purification:

"And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again receives her. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: Mother, thou shaft have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the just."
Acts of Paul and Thecla(A.D. 160),in ANF,VIII:490


"Without delay, on that very night, this was shown to me in a vision. I saw Dinocrates going out from a gloomy place, where also there were several others, and he was parched and very thirsty, with a filthy countenance and pallid colour, and the wound on his face which he had when he died. This Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age? who died miserably with disease...But I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in the camp-show. Then was the birth-day of Gets Caesar, and I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me.Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me. I saw that that place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment. And where there had been a wound, I saw a scar; and that pool which I had before seen, I saw now with its margin lowered even to the boy's navel. And one drew water from the pool incessantly, and upon its brink was a goblet filled with water; and Dinocrates drew near and began to drink from it, and the goblet did not fail. And when he was satisfied, he went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of children, and I awoke. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment."
The Passion of Perpetua and Felicitias,2:3-4(A.D. 202),in ANF,III:701-702


"Accordingly the believer, through great discipline, divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more--not yet or not quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is also ashamed of his transgressions. The greatest torments, indeed, are assigned to the believer. For God's righteousness is good, and His goodness is righteous. And though the punishments cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one, yet those have very great and permanent grief who are found worthy of the other fold, on account of not being along with those that have been glorified through righteousness."
Clement of Alexandria,Stromata,6:14(post A.D. 202),in ANF,II:504


"[A] woman is more bound when her husband is dead...Indeed,she prays for his soul,and requests refreshment for him meanwhie, and fellowship(with him) in the first resurrection;and she offers(her sacrifice) on the anniversary of his falling asleep."
Tertullian,On Monogamy,10(A.D. 216),in ANF,III:66-67


"Then we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petition. Then on behalf also of the Holy Fathers and Bishops who have fallen asleep before us, and in a word of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us, believing that it will be a very great benefit to the souls, for whom the supplication is put up, while that holy and most awful sacrifice is set forth. And I wish to persuade you by an illustration. For I know that many say, what is a soul profited, which departs from this world either with sins, or without sins, if it be commemorated in the prayer? For if a king were to banish certain who had given him offence, and then those who belong to them should weave a crown and offer it to him on behalf of those under punishment, would he not grant a remission of their penalties? In the same way we, when we offer to Him our supplications for those who have fallen asleep, though they be sinners, weave no crown, but offer up Christ sacrificed for our sins, propitiating our merciful God for them as well as for ourselves.
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,23:9,10(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:154-155

These citations proving the Christian tradition of praying for the dead and thus the acceptance of the beliefs expressed in the dogma of Purgatory refute the Anglican claim.


in response to claim 2:

The Anglican article claims that the doctrine regarding Purgatory has no Scriptural basis.

Let me quote from the Old Testament:
"And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. For, if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. ... It is, therefore, a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins."[II. Mach. xii. 43-46.]

And we have early witnesses showing that Purgatorian belief was seen in the Scriptures:


"For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones(1 Cor.,3);but also wood and hay and stubble,what do you expect when the soul shall be seperated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God;or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones; Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials;for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature,but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble.It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our trangressions and then returns to us the rewardof our great works."
Origen,Homilies on Jeremias,PG 13:445,448(A.D. 244),in CE,577


"For our part, we recognize that even in this life some punishments are purgatorial,--not, indeed, to those whose life is none the better, but rather the worse for them, but to those who are constrained by them to amend their life. All other punishments, whether temporal or eternal, inflicted as they are on every one by divine providence, are sent either on account of past sins, or of sins presently allowed in the life, or to exercise and reveal a man's graces. They may be inflicted by the instrumentality of bad men and angels as well as of the good. For even if any one suffers some hurt through another's wickedness or mistake, the man indeed sins whose ignorance or injustice does the harm; but God, who by His just though hidden judgment permits it to be done, sins not. But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment; for to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next, that is, they are not punished with the eternal punishment.of the world to come."
Augustine,City of God,21:13(A.D. 426),in NPNF1,II:464


"If we neither give thanks to God in tribulations nor redeem our own sins by good works,we shall have to remain in that purgatorian fire as long as it takes for those above-mentioned lesser sins to be consumed like wood and straw and hay."
Ceasar of Arles,Sermon 179(104):2(A.D. 542),in JUR,III:283


"Each one will be presented to the Judge exactly as he was when he departed this life. Yet, there must be a cleansing fire before judgement,because of some minor faults that may remain to be purged away. Does not Christ,the Truth,say that if anyone blasphemes against the Holy Spirit he shall not be forgiven 'either in this world or in the world to come'(Mt. 12:32)? From this statement we learn that some sins can be forgiven in this world and some in the world to come. For, if forgiveness is refused for a particular sin, we conclude logically that it is granted for others. This must apply, as I said, to slight transgressions."
Gregory the Great[regn. A.D. 590-604],Dialogues,4:39(A.D. 594),in FC,39:248

Therefore I conclude that there is Scriptural basis for the dogma of Purgatory both in the Old and the New Testament. I thus reject the Anglican objection as being false.


in response to claim 3:

The Anglicans claim that the "Romish Doctrine" regarding the Invocation of Saints is "vainly invented".
The same procedure as in the response to claim 1 can be used here: I only need to demonstrate that this particular belief has existed prior to 1054 a.D.: this alone is sufficient to refute the Anglican claim.

"Then we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petition. Then on behalf also of the Holy Fathers and Bishops who have fallen asleep before us, and in a word of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us, believing that it will be a very great benefit to the souls, for whom the supplication is put up, while that holy and most awful sacrifice is set forth."
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,23:9(A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:154


"Only may that power come upon us which strengthens weakness, through the prayers of him[i.e. St. Paul] who made his own strength perfect in bodily weakness"
Gregory of Nyssa,Against Eunomius,1:1(A.D. 380),in NPNF2,V:36


"As to our paying honor to the memory of the martyrs, and the accusation of Faustus, that we worship them instead of idols, I should not care to answer such a charge, were it not for the sake of showing how Faustus, in his desire to cast reproach on us, has overstepped the Manichaean inventions, and has fallen heedlessly into a popular notion found in Pagan poetry, although he is so anxious to be distinguished from the Pagans. For in saying that we have turned the idols into martyrs, be speaks of our worshipping them with similar rites, and appeasing the shades of the departed with wine and food. Do you, then, believe in shades? We never heard you speak of such things, nor have we read of them in your books. In fact, you generally oppose such ideas: for you tell us that the souls of the dead, if they are wicked, or not purified, are made to pass through various changes, or suffer punishment still more severe; while the good souls are placed in ships, and sail through heaven to that imaginary region of light which they died fighting for. According to you, then, no souls remain near the burying-place of the body; and how can there be any shades of the departed? What and where are they? Faustus' love of evil-speaking has made him forget his own creed; or perhaps he spoke in his sleep about ghosts, and did not wake up even when he saw his words in writing. It is true that Christians pay religious honor to the memory of the martyrs, both to excite us to imitate them and to obtain a share in their merits, and the assistance of their prayers. But we build altars not to any martyr, but to the God of martyrs, although it is to the memory of the martyrs. No one officiating at the altar in the saints' burying-place ever says, We bring an offering to thee, O Peter! or O Paul! or O Cyprian! The offering is made to God, who gave the crown of martyrdom, while it is in memory of those thus crowned. The emotion is increased by the associations of the place, and. love is excited both towards those who are our examples, and towards Him by whose help we may follow such examples. We regard the martyrs with the same affectionate intimacy that we feel towards holy men of God in this life, when we know that their hearts are prepared to endure the same suffering for the truth of the gospel. There is more devotion in our feeling towards the martyrs, because we know that their conflict is over; and we can speak with greater confidence in praise of those already victors in heaven, than of those still combating here. What is properly divine worship, which the Greeks call latria, and for which there is no word in Latin, both in doctrine and in practice, we give only to God. To this worship belongs the offering of sacrifices; as we see in the word idolatry, which means the giving of this worship to idols. Accordingly we never offer, or require any one to offer, sacrifice to a martyr, or to a holy soul, or to any angel. Any one falling into this error is instructed by doctrine, either in the way of correction or of caution. For holy beings themselves, whether saints or angels, refuse to accept what they know to be due to God alone. We see this in Paul and Barnabas, when the men of Lycaonia wished to sacrifice to them as gods, on account of the miracles they performed. They rent their clothes, and restrained the people, crying out to them, and persuading them that they were not gods. We see it also in the angels, as we read in the Apocalypse that an angel would not allow himself to be worshipped, and said to his worshipper, 'I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethen.' Those who claim this worship are proud spirits, the devil and his angels, as we see in all the temples and rites of the Gentiles. Some proud men, too, have copied their example; as is related of some kings of Babylon. Thus the holy Daniel was accused and persecuted, because when the king made a decree that no petition should be made to any god, but only to the king, he was found worshipping and praying to his own God, that is, the one true God. As for those who drink to excess at the feasts of the martyrs, we of course condemn their conduct; for to do so even in their own houses would be contrary to sound doctrine. But we must try to amend what is bad as well as prescribe what is good, and must of necessity bear for a time with some things that are not according to our teaching. The rules of Christian conduct are not to be taken from the indulgences of the intemperate or the infirmities of the weak. Still, even in this, the guilt of intemperance is much less than that of impiety. To sacrifice to the martyrs, even fasting, is worse than to go home intoxicated from their feast: to sacrifice to the martyrs, I say, which is a different thing from sacrificing to God in memory of the martyrs, as we do constantly, in the manner required since the revelation of the New Testament, for this belongs to the worship or latria which is due to God alone. But it is vain to try to make these heretics understand the full meaning of these words of the Psalmist: 'He that offereth the sacrifice of praise glorifieth me, and in this way will I show him my salvation.' Before the coming of Christ, the flesh and blood of this sacrifice were foreshadowed in the animals slain; in the passion of Christ the types were fulfilled by the true sacrifice; after the ascension of Christ, this sacrifice is commemorated in the sacrament. Between the sacrifices of the Pagans and of the Hebrews there is all the difference that there is between a false imitation and a typical anticipation. We do not despise or denounce the virginity of holy women because there were vestal virgins. And, in the same way, it is no reproach to the sacrifices of our fathers that the Gentiles also had sacrifices. The difference between the Christian and vestal virginity is great, yet it consists wholly in the being to whom the vow is made and paid; and so the difference in the being to whom the sacrifices of the Pagans and Hebrews are made and offered makes a wide difference between them. In the one case they are offered to devils, who presumptuously make this claim in order to be held as gods, because sacrifice is a divine honor. In the other case they are offered to the one true God, as a type of the true sacrifice, which also was to be offered to Him in the passion of the body and blood of Christ."
Augustine,Against Faustus,20:21(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,IV:261-262


"The noble souls of the triumphant are sauntering around heaven, dancing in the choruses of the bodiless; and not one tomb for each conceals their bodies, but cities and villages divide them up and call them healers and preservers of souls and bodies, and venerate them a guardians and protectors of cities; and when they intervene as ambassadors before the Master of the universe the divine gifts are obtained through them; and though the body has been divided, its grace has continued undivided. And that little particle and smallest relic has the same power as the absolutely and utterly undivided martyr."
Theodoret of Cyrus,The Cure of Pagan Maladies,8:54(A.D. 449),in JUR,III:241


" Thou gainest nothing, thou prevailest nothing, O savage cruelty. His mortal frame is released from thy devices, and, when Laurentius departs to heaven, thou art vanquished. The flame of Christ's love could not be overcome by thy flames, and the fire which burnt outside was less keen than that which blazed within. Thou didst but serve the martyr in thy rage, O persecutor: thou didst but swell the reward in adding to the pain. For what did thy cunning devise, which did not redound to the conqueror's glory, when even the instruments of torture were counted as part of the triumph? Let us rejoice, then, dearly-beloved, with spiritual joy, and make our boast over the happy end of this illustrious man in the Lord, Who is 'wonderful in His saints,' in whom He has given us a support and an example, and has so spread abroad his glory throughout the world, that, from the rising of the sun to its going down, the brightness of his deacon's light doth shine, and Rome is become as famous in Laurentius as Jerusalem was ennobled by Stephen. By his prayer and intercession we trust at all times to be assisted; that, because all, as the Apostle says, 'who wish to live holily in Christ, suffer persecutions,' we may be strengthened with the spirit of love, and be fortified to overcome all temptations by the perseverance of steadfast faith. Through our LORD Jesus Christ"
Pope Leo the Great[regn. A.D. 440-461],On the Feast of Laurence the Martyr,Sermon 85:4(ante A.D. 461),in NPNF2,XII:198


I believe this to be sufficient to refute the Anglican article.


in response to claim 4:

The fourth Anglican claim I plan to refute is that which states that the "Romish Catholic" teaching regarding the Invocation of the Saints is not warranted by Scripture.

It should be noted that the Catholic Church also maintains that we can invoke the intercession of Angels as well:

"May the angel that delivereth me from all evils bless these boys!"[Gen. xiviii. 16.] In this case, we see the Patriarch Jacob invoking the blessing of an angel.

"The angel Raphael, after having disclosed himself to Tobias, said to him: "When thou didst pray with tears, and didst bury the dead, and didst leave thy dinner, I offered thy prayer to the Lord."[Tobias xii. 12.] How could the angel, if he were ignorant of these petitions, have presented to God the prayers of Tobias?"

[II Mach. xv.]
12 Now the vision was in this manner: Onias who had been high priest, a good and virtuous man, modest in his looks, gentle in his manners, and graceful in his speech, and who from a child was exercised in virtues, holding up his hands, prayed for all the people of the Jews: 13 After this there appeared also another man, admirable for age, and glory, and environed with great beauty and majesty: 14 Then Onias answering, said: This is a lover of his brethren, and of the people of Israel: this is he that prayeth much for the people, and for all the holy city, Jeremias the prophet of God.

What we have here is an example of a long-deceased prophet - Jeremiah - who appears in a vision to Judas Maccabeus as a helper and intercessor for his brethren on earth.


"The four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps and golden vials full of odors, which are the prayers of the saints."[Revel. v. 8.]

In Zacharias 1, we also have an example of Angelic intercession.

Since it has been Scripturally demonstrated that indeed the dead can and do pray for the living, it is not false to ask for their intercession.


in response to claim 5:

The 5th claim extracted from the 22nd article of Religion suggests that the "Romish Catholic" teaching concerning Purgatory and the Invocation of Saints is "repugnant to the Word of God".

This claim is absolutely wrong as the pillars upon which this final claim stands, the 1st to 4th claims, have been proven to be false: not only in content, but also in the manner of formulation.

It is to be observed: it is one thing to say that a certain idea is "unbiblical" than to say it is "repugnant to the Word of God". I could e.g. make a case against the Biblical canon by saying that Scriptural canon is "not warranted by Sacred Writ". Indeed, the Bible does not contain any list of canonical Scriptures from which we derive the canon of the Holy Bible (a reason why sola scriptura fails). However, the lack of a Biblical list of canonical Scriptures does not mean that the canonization of the Holy Bible is thus "repugnant to the Word of God". It becomes quite apparent that the authors of the 39 articles were blinded by their opposition to the Catholic Church.


What then is the reason to claim that the Catholic teaching on Purgatory and the Invocation of Saints is "repugnant to the Word of God"?


Closing words:

XXII. Of Purgatory.
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

I contend that this particular Anglican Article is what is repugnant to the Word of God since it is a false witness.

The article speaks against Anglicanism on the following accounts:

1) It misrepresents Roman Catholics as worshipping and adoring images and relics (false witness).

2) The ancient customs of venerating relics and images, invoking the Saints, believing in a state of purification after death and the efficacy of prayers for the dead are all condemned as "invented Romish Doctrines".
* These traditions are older than the Anglican's claim regarding the "foundation of the Roman Catholic Church" which AnglicanApologist72 erroneously dates to be at 1054 a.D. From this mistake, two possibilities arise:
- The Anglican article simply is false. (A false witness shall not be unpunished: and he that speaketh lies shall not escape. - Proverbs 19:5)
- AnglicanApologist72 and other like-minded Anglicans are wrong in claiming that the (Roman) Catholic Church was founded/established in 1054 a.D.: but existed prior to this date (if they insist that it is the Roman Catholic Church that upheld these doctrines and practices). If this is the case, then the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ and the Anglicans have schismed and thus are in a state of grave sin (since AnglicanApologist72 admits that prior to 1054, the Catholic Church - which he distinquishes from the Catholic Church in communion with the Roman Pontiff - was still visibly united).

3) The article shows a departure from the teaching of the Ecumenical Councils. I remember AnglicanApologist72 claiming to hold to the techings of the Ecumenical Councils. He also says that anyone who holds to the Nicene Creed and the decrees of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils can rightfully call himself a "catholic Christian".

This is what the 2nd Council of Nicaea says:

"If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema."

The 22nd Anglican Article rejects the following:

1) the existence of a state of purification after death which we Roman Catholics call "Purgatory"
2) the efficacy of prayers and the sacrifice of the Mass for the deceased
3) the Invocation of Saints
4) the Biblical foundations for the aforementioned doctrines and practices


And now, let us turn the tables. It has occured to me that AnglicanApologist72 (on youtube) has been making a couple of videos against the Catholic Church, but has failed to even make a good cause as to why he even is an Anglican. It is never difficult to try to poke holes into another's position.
All his false allegations against the Catholic Church can be addressed. But I fail to see why we Catholics should entertain the rantings of every single person? I have maintained that it does not suffice to simply be against something, one must also advocate or be for something else. Otherwise, one's position is only destructive and will lead to nothing good. Wherefore, I would like to see first how Anglicanism can be a "real alternative" to Catholicism - or Eastern Orthodoxy.

AnglicanApologist72 claims he is an Anglican because he believes in the Nicene Creed and the Ecumenical Councils and that he also holds to the 39 Articles of Religion: this has been demonstrated to be wrong since the 39 Articles are not compatible with the Ecumenical Councils.

(He claims: "I am Anglican because I follow the ecumenical councils of the Church, proved by Holy Scripture." **00:35 in his video [Why I am Anglican]**)

It would be wise for him to first try to come up with a proper presentation of Anglicanism before he starts to argue against the Catholic Church - against which the gates of hell shall never prevail (Matthews 16:18).