Mittwoch, 18. November 2009


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:
"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).

Keine Kommentare:

Kommentar veröffentlichen