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).

Confession (Fr. Larry Richard)

Can we have more sermons like this in our churches?

Sinful Knowledge

This is a topic that pretty much is quite important to me. Not few Christians - especially younger ones - nowadays seem to have a great thirst for intellectual growth in regards to the Christian faith. Of course this is a good development in the sense that Christians are having a greater interest in matters of doctrine, i.e. in orthodoxy.

But the title is negative, not positive: why? The reason lies in the simple fact that knowledge of the doctrines of the Church alone is not enough: while it is good and necessary to know the orthodox faith, obedience to it automatically becomes a requirement - this is something that not few fail to realize. There are enough who study a lot and debate a lot the issues of morality, faith and Church discipline as though they were merely theoretical ideas. But what about the number of those who actually try to live according to what they learn about Sacred Truth?

In that sense, there seems to be a problem which turns the Christian faith - which is meant to captivate the whole person - to a merely theoretical construct which is "nice to discuss", but is left in the realm of abstract ideas: it is thought of, but not lived. A person who knows the Truth, but does not live accordingly will be left without excuse. It does not suffice to "know" doctrine, one must live by it.

(James 1:) 22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. 23 For if a man be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he shall be compared to a man beholding his own countenance in a glass. 24 For he beheld himself, and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was. 25 But he that hath looked into the perfect law of liberty, and hath continued therein, not becoming a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work; this man shall be blessed in his deed.

26 And if any man think himself to be religious, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his own heart, this man's religion is vain. 27 Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation: and to keep one's self unspotted from this world.

The more a person knows, the stricter are the standards, the less the excuses. One must therefore know what the reason for such religious studies ought to be: the deepening of one's living relationship with God. If one studies these things for the sake of winning debates for vainglory, then indeed such knowledge is sin, for it does not lead to God, but away from Him: it is knowledge without wisdom.

It is of course much easier to tell others how wrong they are and what they ought to do than to correct one's own lifestyle.

But in this case, the words of the Lord apply perfectly:

"Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." (Matthew 7:5)

The reason and end of one's religious studies must be God,
The reason for one's preaching must be charity, not personal fame.

Obedience to God through obedience to His Church and humility help us stay on the right path: those who are vain and prideful go astray.

Sola Fide and the hypostatic union

This entry will deal with the protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, sola fide, in light of the hypostatic union of Christ.

It should be clear that Catholics reject this doctrine when it is meant in exclusion of charity (which necessitates the existence of good works, a sanctified life through the grace of God). Since not all protestants necessarily understand the same concept under the words "sola fide", it should be noted that I am not arguing against "faith alone" which is only pro forma "alone", but de facto requires good works to complete our justification: in such a case, the protestant is directed towards the correct understanding of justification - as taught by the Catholic Church - but somehow still feels the need to retain the wording of Martin Luther. Anyways, the issue is about content and not semantics.

For this blog entry, I will be addressing a more common protestant understanding of justification by faith alone as outlined in "Justification: Emphasizing the Distinction Between Protestant and Roman Catholic Thought" by Corey Keiting, Proferssor Al Glenn (ST502 Systematic Theology II; Fuller Theological Seminary, Phoenix Extension; Winter Quarter 2002).

Let me quote what is presented as the protestant doctrine:

"Justification is defined as the act of God by which he imputes the righteousness of Christ to a believer and declares that person to be forgiven of all sins, thus pronouncing the person righteous in his sight (Acts 13:38-39; Romans 4:5, 24). It is a declarative and judicial act of God (Romans 8:1; Colossians 1:22), based on the righteousness of Christ, rather than an infusion of holiness into a believer or a change in their character. It changed the position of a believer and puts them into a right standing with God, but is distinct from the dispositional change of that person's heart or the actual altering of their spiritual condition."

"Justification means that God, as the universal judge, acquits us of our guilt and declares us as righteous (Romans 5:8). The very righteousness of Jesus Christ is transferred to our account and we are seen as if we had never sinned nor been a sinner, as if we had been as perfectly obedient as Christ was obedient for us (2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 5:18-19)."

"From our human point of view, faith in the finished work of Christ is the only thing that is required for us to be declared righteous (Romans 3:28). We receive this gracious gift of God by faith alone (Romans 3:22; 4:4; Galatians 3:24-24); we do not merit it in any way by good works, reformed behaviour, or resolutions to never sin again (Galatians 2:16)."

I have not quoted the entire essay (as the copy-and-paste mode hasn't been working for a while for my blog), but I believe to have extracted the most important statements dealing with the protestant understanding of justification by faith alone.

I will now start with the examination of justification in regards to the hypostatic union of Christ:

As in my entries on Orthodoxy expounding on the necessarily theandric nature of the Church due to it being the body of Christ (who Himself had two natures: human and divine), I also see here a necessity for a connection with the dogma of the hypostatic union. As the Church as a whole is theandric, so too must the individuals who make up the Church (1 Corinthians 12:14, 19, 27) be theandric. Why was there an Incarnation?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church - in accordance to Apostolic Tradition - teaches:
460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into Communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God:79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

78: 2 Peter 1:4
79: St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.
80: St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.
81: St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.

This doctine is what is called theosis in the East. It is better understood under the term "deification". Justification without it is unthinkable as it would destroy the very idea behind the Incarnation.

Faith is of the spirit, works of the body. Indeed the Bible does say that we are not justified by works (Romans 11:6). What "works" are meant though? St. Paul means works without faith and grace. He condemns the notion of working out one's own salvation without being in the state of grace - as though God owed us salvation for certain works done by ourselves. One may say that this is a "rationalization" of Catholics. But no, St. Paul himself says: "with fear and trembling work out your salvation" (Philippians 2:12). Does St. Paul thus contradict himself? Nay, he teaches the very doctrine of theosis. Man - through the grace of God - is enabled to do good.

Some may object and say that no man is able to do good for the Lord said: "None is good but God alone" (Luke 18:19).

How then can one who is not good do that which is good; and by this good deed even merit salvation? This sounds like works-based salvation. And this is precisely what not few protestants (falsely) accuse Catholics of believing.

The solution to the problem is presented by St. Paul himself who teaches that Christians are indeed capable of doing what is good and that this good deed is salvific "for it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will" (Philippians 2:13).

The key is the indwelling of God in us. This is basic to the doctrine of deification and to the theandric nature of justification. So many thoughts are now running through my mind that I hope I do justice to these thoughts.

At first, one needs to realize that the very "entrance" into the Christian faith is effected through baptism which itself is both material and spiritual. In fact, all the sacraments are theandric. I cannot think of any sacrament which is confected without material cooperatives.

Second, one needs to realize that the principle behind justification is that of obedience. Justification is - as taught by the Catholic Church - initially effected through faith and completed through works, i.e. a sanctified life: it is the subjection of the total person in obedience to Christ. We Christians are therefore children of God as as are "children of obedience" (1 Peter 1:14).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
142 By his Revelation, "the invisible God, from the fullness of his love, addresses men as his friends, and moves among them, in order to invite and receive them into his own company." 1 The adequate response to this invitation is faith.
143 By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God.2 With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, "the obedience of faith".3

1: DV 2; cf. Col 1:15; 1 Tim 1:17; Ex 33:11; Jn 15:14-15; Bar 3:38 (Vulg.).
2: Cf. DV 5.
3: Cf. Rom 1:5; 16:26

We submit completely our intellect and will unto God. It should be clear that to will something does not necessarily lead to man doing it.

St. Paul teaches of the conflict between the spirit and the flesh (Romans 8:4, 7, 9; Galatians 4:29). Are we then to suppose that only our faith is required for us to be justified while our works are according to the flesh? St. Paul teaches "that the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit (Romans 8:4).

So it is clear from Sacred Scripture that after we have subjected our intellect and will in obedience to Christ, we must subject our lifestyle, our "walk", our "works" unto Christ also. "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified (Romans 2:13).
For this very reason St. James teaches:
"But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if a man be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he shall be compared to a man beholding his own countenance in a glass. For he beheld himself, and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was. But he that hath looked into the perfect law of liberty, and hath continued therein, not becoming a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work; this man shall be blessed in his deed.
And if any man think himself to be religious, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his own heart, this man's religion is in vain. Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and the widows in their tribulation: and to keep oneself unspotted form this world." (James 1:22-27)

So if one thinks himself to be religious, but lives not in accordance to God's law, then this man's religion is useless. His faith is dead (James 2:20). Why is his faith dead? Because there can be no deification of a man without the subjection of his body unto God. What is then sanctification to a man who lives an ungodly life despite his claim to faith? Surely, here exists again a divorce between the two natures: spiritual and material. But the resurrection is of the body, thus it is not only our souls that ascend to heaven, but our bodies also: just as Christ Himself ascended Body and Soul to heaven (John 3:13).


I shall now examine the problems of the protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone.

1) The doctrine of imputed righteousness suggests that we are made righteous before God "on the outside" only.
Jesus teaches: "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanliness." (Matthew 23:25)
Why would God criticize an outward "imputation" of cleanliness amongst the scribes and pharisees, but use this very same method to justify men?
Furthermore, Jesus says that all evil thigs come from within (Mark 7:23), thus it would seem rather illogical for Jesus to point out the root of evil in man and give as solution an imputation of righteousness - which does not change man's real sinfulness from within. He gives a solution which does not address the root of the problem He Himself has revealed. Rather it is more plausible to believe in the infusion of grace which changes us from within to "will and to accomplish" (Philippians 2:13) that which is good, i.e. to have faith and to live according to God's will.

2) If faith alone justifies, then The Bible is wrong on a couple of occasions: Matthew 25:31-46; Psalm 62:12; Matthew 16:27; Revelation 22:12; (John 14:21-24).
All these passages suggest that God will judge us according to our deeds. If we therefore are already justified - and thus declared "not guilty" - by faith alone, then God must ignore our deeds.
And if indeed we are already declared righteous on account of our faith alone and thus are "freed" from the consequences of sin, then surely we should be able to sin all we want without having to fear any consequences: our works would be irrelevant. If our works are not related to our justification and thus to our salvation, then surely they will not be able to condemn us. If by faith alone we are justified, then only through apostasy may we lose justification. And as protestants do not believe in purgatory either, then one's immorality would be deemed "neutral" in the eyes of God. And then protestants say that to be a Christian is to "imitate Christ". Did Christ believe only? Or did He live perfectly? 1 Corinthians 11:1.

3) If God ignores the evil deeds of those who believe unto Christ as their Saviour, and thus render a life of sanctify unnecessary for salvation, then the Bible is wrong on at least these occasions: the above mentioned passages, Hebrews 13:17 in connection with Jude 1:11; Acts 5:1-10; 1 Timothy 4:16; 2 Timothy 4:3-4; Hebrews 2:2; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10.

4) If justification by faith alone is right, then Jesus is wrong since He teaches that "except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." (John 6:54)

5) If faith alone justifies, then one can be in God without being good, i.e. living according to Divine Law. This contradicts the following: 1 John 3:6-10; Matthew 27:21-25


Far from me be the thought that the Holy Bible may be wrong or self-contradictory! As we can see, there is perfect harmony to be found in Catholic teaching, but problems arise with the protestant doctrine - problems as serious as to make our Lord a liar!

John 6:54 is quite remarkable - especially when understood correctly: that indeed the bread is turned to Christ's Body and the wine to His Blood - in regards to the theandric nature of the Church. Our participation in Christ's divine nature is thus not only "in spirit" - as protestants suggest - but is also physical: by partaking of the one bread, Christ Jesus, we become the one Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:17). We are the "temple of the Holy Ghost" (1 Corinthians 6:19).

God became man that we might become God. In Jesus Christ we have the only Mediator of Redemption: only through Him can we be redeemed of our sinfulness, only through Him can creation be restored to union with God. And so it is that man is not only a spiritual being, but also physical.

Let us remember that the doctrine of justification by faith alone and of imputed grace not only divorce the spiritual from the material - thus dissolving our being the Mystical Body of Christ as His Church - but also tempt God insofar that they suggest God "fools" Himself into thinking that one is righteous while still retaining a heart of wickedness (let us remember that sanctification is strictly divorced from the protestant idea of justification). The latter opposes Scripture since it teaches that "there shall not enter into it [the tabernacle of God with men] anything that is defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie" (Revelation 21:27). And that "the works of the flesh are before him, and there is nothing hid from his eyes" (Sirach 39:24). Would God simply ignore one's unrighteousness on account of one's faith? This seems not to be the case.

Lest we forget: any attempt to still justify "sola fide" is to argue on basis of the rejection of one's total submission to God. I personally think that Christians ought to follow the example of Christ: He harmonized in Himself human nature with the divine; thus showing us all that we are to be sanctified, to be deified, that we may be partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), that we too may be good in body and in soul.

So in the end, we know that disobedience lead to the fall of Satan, and to the fallen nature of mankind; we also know that through obedience - of the total person, i.e. body and soul, thought and deed, faith and works - in and unto Christ we are restored to union with God.