Refute the ThirtyNine Articles?

Can someone provide some Catholic criticisms from Scripture and Tradition of these particular Articles from the Anglican “Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion”, one by one? If possible, also link to some sites that also provides support of the Catholic view:

ARTICLES VI. & XX.—“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation … The Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same, ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.”

ARTICLE XI.—“That we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine.”

ARTICLES XII. & XIII.—“Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of His Spirit, ‘before justification,’ title of the Article,] are not pleasant to God; forasmuch as they spring not of Faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make man meet to receive grace, or (as the school authors say) deserve grace of congruity; yea, rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin. Albeit good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s judgment, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith.”

ARTICLE XIX.—“The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered, according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.”

ARTICLE XXI.—“General councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes. And when they be gathered together, forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God, they may err, and sometimes have erred, in things pertaining to God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they are taken out of Holy Scripture.”

ARTICLE XXII.—“The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons [indulgences], 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.”

ARTICLE XXV.—“Those five, commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown, partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly from states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of sacraments, with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.”

ARTICLE XXVIII.—“Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine, in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.”

ARTICLE XXXI.—“The sacrifice of Masses, in which it was commonly said, that the priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.”

ARTICLE XXXII. “Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God’s law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage.”

ARTICLE XXXVIII.—“The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.”

**I don’t need to, the Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520 called Exsurge Domine did it. ** Here you’ll find the refutation of those “who are filled with foolishness”

JoeT

I did not find refutation only condemnation. I requested refutation.

Just a suggestion…apologetics addresses nearly every one of Articles , not specifically to the Anglican church, rather by its very nature and truth.

Catholic Answers has a great Apologetics site, and I believe there are other websites as well that are good.

Blessings!

It’s worth pointing out that Blessed John Henry Newman examinined the XXXIX Articles and argued they could all be read as in keeping with traditional Catholic teaching…

anglicanhistory.org/tracts/tract90/

(Read at your leisure! It will take some time!)

Yes, and he was severely reprimanded for it too! Newman was saddened by the Protestant streak (really backbone) that runs through the Anglican church. There was no way the Anglican Episcopacy would look upon the 39 articles with a “Catholic” interpretation. It was tantamount to interpreting the US Constitution in a Communist Manifesto sort of way. :wink:

As for the OP’s request for a refutation, that is not possible within the scope of a single thread. There are too many topics involved.

Reprimanded by the RCC when he converted? Or by the Church of England/University of Oxford? I know he wasn’t exactly flavour of the month after publishing Tract 90 (which is a huge understatement!!), but I assume the Catholic Church was at ease with at least this writing of his…

Refute the ThirtyNine Articles?

Why? The Anglican Church has essentially abandoned them.

I cooked off a bit of a firestorm in a previous thread (about Anglican orders) when respected Forum Member Anna Scott said that “I find no hint of Calvinism in my [American Episcopal] Parish”

I replied (with a little bit of snark, which Anna appreciated):

And the most amazing thing happened. Anglicans came out and dismissed the 39 Articles as merely "historic documents and “a momentary lapse, a blurb” that no Anglicans (except, perhaps, a few CoE clergymen) are expected to uphold. Apparently, because the Articles are old, they no longer apply (unless you want them to).

The 39 Articles were ratified in 1571 (just four and a half centuries ago). On this Forum, Catholics routinely uphold and defend Ecumenical Councils and Papal teachings that are more than 1000 years OLDER than the 39 Articles. I’ve never seen a Catholic dismiss a teaching of the Magesterium as a “lapse,” no matter how old it is.

If Anglicans won’t uphold and defend the 39 Articles, what is the point of refuting them? It’s like refuting the idea that the earth is flat.

Well, I won’t vouch for the silly things that Anglicans (and other people) may say, but I have never heard anyone suggest seriously that the 39 Articles are invalid because they are old.

Our primary standards of faith in Anglicanism are the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, which are, of course, much older than the Articles.

The problem with the articles isn’t that they are too old, but that they are too new. Or more precisely, they are a document drawn up to keep the peace in the state Church of England after the Reformation. The priest who catechized me in Anglicanism (and to be fair, he is no longer an Episcopalian–or wasn’t when I last contacted him) told me that not only the ancient Creeds but even the teaching of the medieval Church trumps the Articles. To be sure, that isn’t a universal or even typical opinion among Anglicans. But generally speaking, Anglicans who reject or relativize the Articles do so because of our attachment to more ancient and universal standards of faith. (Part of the paradox and tragedy of Anglicanism is that this same relativization can lead to a complete breakdown of adherence to any standards at all.)

Edwin

St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis DeSales both wrote in defence of the faith against the lies of the reformers. The Catechism of Trent also addressed the errors of the reformers. Hilare Belloc has an incredibly well thought out piece on the reformation. And Chesterton wrote on the errors within the anglican church.

Then you didn’t click on my link to my prior conversation.

Respected veteran Forum member GKC posted:

I am not a great fan of the 1979 Book commonly used in the Episcopal Church, and no fan of the Episcopal Church at all. But in one point, the [19]79 book is accurate. It places the Articles in a section for historical documents. And so they are.

Anglicanism is creedal, not confessional, and the Articles are how Elizabeth chose to restrain her fractious Church. They bind no one in Anglicanism, of their own authority, save (technically) ordinands of the CoE.

So NOW you have heard someone (and a respected authority, not just some random kook) who says that the Articles are merely “historical documents” (as they are categorized in the 1979 BCP) and have no authority over anyone except (technically) ordained CoE ministers.

Can you IMAGINE the fallout if someone suggested that the Council of Trent was only (technically) authoritative to clergymen ordained in Rome?

GKC did not, even remotely, suggest that they were non-binding “because they were old.” I think you are misled by the phrase “historical documents.” Note that the Nicene Creed is not relegated to this category even though it is much older.

And I’m not sure what your point is about Trent. Obviously GKC does not view the Articles the way Catholics view Trent. Nor do I. Why would this surprise you?

Edwin

Perhaps, but ALL “historical documents” of the Catholic Magesterium are firmly binding upon ALL Catholics. Not nominally binding only upon certain clergymen.

Heck, Catholics are bound by teachings whose “historic documents” have been LOST. We know that Pope St. Damasus declared that Baptism by heretics is valid, but we don’t have a single document to show for it. Apologists defend this doctrine on this Forum all the time, and that doctrine is seventeen hundred years old.

Anglicans feel completely at liberty to disregard every one of the 39 Articles. When I was Anglican, that is exactly what I did.

Do you think that ANY Anglican felt free to disregard ANY Article in 1570? I’m pretty sure Lizzy-1 would have burned him at the stake.

And I’m not sure what your point is about Trent. Obviously GKC does not view the Articles the way Catholics view Trent. Nor do I. Why would this surprise you?

Because the 39 Articles are essentially the Creed of the Anglican faith. It is a statement of the founding principles and beliefs of Anglicanism. Without the 39 Articles, Anglicanism is Catholicism (and Anglicanism WAS Catholicism for several decades). I don’t understand how someone can reject the 39 Articles and still call himself an Anglican (even though I did it myself).

Do Presbyterians feel free to toss out Calvin’s Institutes? Or do Lutherans feel free to toss out the Large Catechism? I don’t know the answer to those questions, but I would wonder about such Presbyterians of Lutherans.

Really? All documents of any kind? I’m not sure that’s true.

But it’s irrelevant. Why would you be surprised that authority works differently in Catholicism and Anglicanism?

At any rate, are we clear on the fact that the relativizing of the 39 Articles is not due to their being “old”?

Heck, Catholics are bound by teachings whose “historic documents” have been LOST. We know that Pope St. Damasus declared that Baptism by heretics is valid, but we don’t have a single document to show for it. Apologists defend this doctrine on this Forum all the time, and that doctrine is seventeen hundred years old.

Again, age has nothing to do with it.

Anglicans feel completely at liberty to disregard every one of the 39 Articles. When I was Anglican, that is exactly what I did.

Do you think that ANY Anglican felt free to disregard ANY Article in 1570? I’m pretty sure Lizzy-1 would have burned him at the stake.

Nope. You would be wrong about that. People were not burned at the stake for disregarding the Articles. You pretty much had to deny the Trinity to get burned for heresy by Protestants. Two anti-Trinitarian Anabaptists were burned under Elizabeth’s successor. I thought some were burned by her too, but I can’t find a reference at the moment. (Protestants did, of course, execute people by other methods for religious reasons, such as the many Catholics executed as “traitors,” sometimes just for attending Mass.) The Elizabethan government was interested in public order more than in regulating people’s private beliefs.

Because the 39 Articles are essentially the Creed of the Anglican faith.

No. The Nicene Creed is the Creed of the Anglican faith.

Or more precisely, there is no Anglican faith. Anglicans claim to hold to the Catholic Faith, though they differ among themselves as to what that means (with the Anglo-Catholics claiming that it requires adherence to the Seven Councils and the faith of the first-millennium Church generally, and others having a relatively more minimal definition).

Anglicanism is not a faith. It is a particular historical variant of Christianity. That’s why the Articles do not have the same status as the Creed.

It is a statement of the founding principles and beliefs of Anglicanism.

No, they aren’t.

Without the 39 Articles, Anglicanism is Catholicism (and Anglicanism WAS Catholicism for several decades).

Untrue. Plenty of Anglicans, including very liberal ones, reject the Articles while also differing strongly with Catholicism.

I don’t understand how someone can reject the 39 Articles and still call himself an Anglican (even though I did it myself).

Easy. Just don’t define Anglicanism by the Articles, and the problem disappears.

You haven’t argued for why the Articles should define Anglicanism. You just assume it.

Do Presbyterians feel free to toss out Calvin’s Institutes?

Calvin’s Institutes, to my knowledge, have no official confessional status within Presbyterianism. I am unaware of any church in which they have such status. They are a large work of systematic theology and it would be rather strange to ask people to subscribe to everything in them.

The analogy you are looking for would be the Westminster Confession of Faith.

And in fact the PCUSA seems to give the WCF a pretty similar status to that of the Articles in Anglicanism. That does seem odd to me, but since I’m not a Presbyterian and it’s unlikely I’ll ever have any reason to affiliate with a PCUSA congregation, that’s not something I feel the need to worry about. If they want to stop being a confessional church and define themselves otherwise, that’s their business. (It does give Anglicans less of an easy foil to compare ourselves with, but that’s all to the good.) Under some circumstances I might conceivably wind up as a member of the Church of Scotland, so the status of the WCF there might be relevant to me some day. But if that ever happens I’ll worry about it then.

I don’t know the answer to those questions, but I would wonder about such Presbyterians of Lutherans.

Obviously Presbyterians or Lutherans who cease to require subscription to their historic confessions have altered something about what it means to be Presbyterians or Lutherans. And maybe Anglicans have done this as well–certainly the Articles are less important to modern Episcopalians than they were to sixteenth or seventeenth or even nineteenth-century Anglicans.

But it happens. Traditions change and develop.

The big problem I think you and other Catholics have is that you start from the assumption that other Christian churches are formally similar to the Catholic Church but differ materially. That is to say, that we have different beliefs and practices but structure them similarly–that our statements of faith must have the same status as Catholic papal or conciliar teachings, for instance. That just isn’t so. Nor are all Protestants the same as each other on these points.

Protestants claim to be part of the Catholic Church. That’s the fundamental point at issue between Protestants and members of the Roman Communion. Anglicanism is not a parallel with Catholicism. That is to say, Anglicans don’t think of Anglicanism as Catholics think of Catholicism. We think that Anglicanism is part of the Church, not the Church. It seems to me that Catholics far too readily ignore or forget this.

Edwin

If it’s a teaching of the Magesterium then it’s true. All Catholics are expected to accept ALL teachings of the Magesterium.

But it’s irrelevant. Why would you be surprised that authority works differently in Catholicism and Anglicanism?

Well, that’s one reason I left Anglicanism. It’s not that authority is different in the Anglican Church, it’s that it doesn’t exist.

At any rate, are we clear on the fact that the relativizing of the 39 Articles is not due to their being “old”?

Well, age is surely a factor. Maybe rejecting the Articles would not have gotten you executed in 1570, but I don’t think any Anglican would have openly expressed opposition (which may be why nobody got burned). I can’t believe that an Englishman could walk around in 1570 dissing the Articles without any fear of reprisal. Today, any Anglican (except, maybe, some CoE clergymen) can openly reject any or all of the Articles without any fear of reprisal. The Articles have not changed. What’s the difference between today and 1570? About 445 years. And, of course, no murderous queens.

People were not burned at the stake for disregarding the Articles.

True, but I don’t think any Anglicans did that. Lizzie-1 did like her executions (she apparently didn’t have Netflix to entertain her).

No. The Nicene Creed is the Creed of the Anglican faith.

The Nicene Creed is the Creed of the Catholic Church. Anglicans might recite it, but they did not write it. Catholics wrote it. We’re glad YOU like OUR Creed.

Or more precisely, there is no Anglican faith.

That’s the OTHER reason I left the Anglican faith. There’s no such thing. I was a member of a faith that doesn’t exist!

Anglicans claim to hold to the Catholic Faith

Some do. I was a member of the (now defunct) Anglican Catholic Church. “Catholic” was in our name. But we had an actual Englishman (Colin) confirmed in the CoE at our parish who insisted that Anglicans are not Catholic but protestant. I’m not sure if Anglicans are either.

The big problem I think you and other Catholics have is that you start from the assumption that other Christian churches are formally similar to the Catholic Church but differ materially. That is to say, that we have different beliefs and practices but structure them similarly–that our statements of faith must have the same status as Catholic papal or conciliar teachings, for instance. That just isn’t so. Nor are all Protestants the same as each other on these points.

Catholics look at protestantism as incomplete Catholicism with errors mixed in.

Protestants claim to be part of the Catholic Church.

No, they claim to be part of the catholic church. The universal church. It’s just an adjective, not an identifier. The catholic church that protestants claim is like the Anglican Church - it doesn’t really exist.

That’s the fundamental point at issue between Protestants and members of the Roman Communion. Anglicanism is not a parallel with Catholicism.

But it used to be. Anglicans used to be just as Catholic as Latins or Orthodox. Henry-8 was named “Defender of the Faith” by Pope Leo-10 (but it was really Thomas Beckett doing the defending). English regents shamefully continue to use this title, even though they have no faith to defend.

[quote=DavidFilmer]But it used to be. Anglicans used to be just as Catholic as Latins or Orthodox. Henry-8 was named “Defender of the Faith” by Pope Leo-10 (but it was really Thomas Beckett doing the defending). English regents shamefully continue to use this title, even though they have no faith to defend.
[/quote]

Just to set the record straight, it was the Holy Bishop of Rochester, St. John Fisher that gathered all of the arguments together for Henry VIII.

The Catholic Newman used to call the Established Church a bulwark against infidelity. So it is unfair to say they have no faith.

Of course Anglicanism, per se, has no authority of its own. That’s the point I keep trying to make. Anglicanism, Methodism, whatever–all are parts of the Church. They don’t claim to be the Church in and of themselves, and obviously they aren’t. Authority rests with the Catholic Church–the Church as a whole–not with some “denomination” or national church acting on its own.

Well, age is surely a factor. Maybe rejecting the Articles would not have gotten you executed in 1570, but I don’t think any Anglican would have openly expressed opposition (which may be why nobody got burned). I can’t believe that an Englishman could walk around in 1570 dissing the Articles without any fear of reprisal.

Dissing the religion by law established would certainly get you into trouble.

Quietly disbelieving in some of the articles wouldn’t. Even openly saying things incompatible with it wouldn’t have been taken too seriously, I think, as long as you were a layperson and were not engaging in blasphemy (denial of the Trinity, for instance). Perhaps I’m wrong. I haven’t made a detailed study of just what kinds of statements would get a person in trouble in Elizabethan England. But as I understand it, the powers that be understood that a lot of people continued to believe, say, in transubstantiation and weren’t that bothered by this, as long as they attended the state church and thus exposed themselves to worship and teaching that would, over time, form them in more “correct” ways.

Today, any Anglican (except, maybe, some CoE clergymen) can openly reject any or all of the Articles without any fear of reprisal. The Articles have not changed. What’s the difference between today and 1570? About 445 years. And, of course, no murderous queens.

If we translate your last sentence from the language of Catholic anti-Elizabeth prejudice to the language of sober historical analysis, then it is a replacement for the trite claim that it’s all about the mere passage of time. That is to say, cultural and political circumstances have changed radically. The idea of imposing religious uniformity by force has, thank God, been abandoned. The Articles were an instrument of that imposition.

Now to be fair, so was the Nicene Creed. But the Creed is more than that because it’s a statement of the faith of the Catholic Church as a whole. The Articles aren’t. Since obviously the Creed is much, much older than the Articles, age per se clearly isn’t the factor.

True, but I don’t think any Anglicans did that.

All English Christians (which meant all English people, at that time) were by definition “Anglicans.” This is the key point you are missing. And people in England did deny the Trinity and were burned at the stake for it. Since my last post I’ve turned up this source which mentions a number of people who were so executed (though to be fair some of them were Dutch by origin).

Lizzie-1 did like her executions (she apparently didn’t have Netflix to entertain her).

I don’t think there’s any reason to think that she “liked” executions particularly. The death penalty was applied much more freely in the sixteenth century than it is in Western nations today, even in Texas.

Replacing the “bloody Mary” myth with a “bloody Elizabeth” myth is not much of an improvement except from a strictly partisan point of view.

The Nicene Creed is the Creed of the Catholic Church. Anglicans might recite it, but they did not write it. Catholics wrote it. We’re glad YOU like OUR Creed.

From an Anglican point of view, it’s not “you” versus “us” but just “us.” Anglicans claim to be part of the Catholic Church.

I agree with Rome that Anglicans and other Protestants do, in fact, have an imperfect relationship to the Church of which their baptism makes them part. However, I see plenty of evidence that churches in communion with Rome are also imperfect in the way they embody the mystical reality of the Church. That’s only my business insofar as I wish to be more fully united to the Church. In my last attempt, as in my previous ones, I ran up against the reality that on the ground a local Catholic parish doesn’t look like a more perfect embodiment of the Church than an Episcopal or Methodist congregation. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps, as I’ve suggested before, we are all imperfect parts of the Church. So your smugness is probably unjustified.

That’s the OTHER reason I left the Anglican faith. There’s no such thing. I was a member of a faith that doesn’t exist!

You were, by virtue of your baptism, a member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, the only faith that matters.

You sought a more perfect relationship with that Faith. I am glad that you have found it. But you became more fully united (at least in some important ways) to the one Faith to which all Christians adhere. You didn’t switch one faith for another. That is, I think, a fully orthodox way to put it from a Catholic perspective.

Some do. I was a member of the (now defunct) Anglican Catholic Church. “Catholic” was in our name. But we had an actual Englishman (Colin) confirmed in the CoE at our parish who insisted that Anglicans are not Catholic but protestant. I’m not sure if Anglicans are either.

Right. Some Anglicans claim to be Catholic and not Protestant. Others claim to be Catholic just as other Protestants do. But all claim to be Catholic.

Catholics look at protestantism as incomplete Catholicism with errors mixed in.

Right. And that’s what it clearly is. But if we take the reality of development of doctrine and the visibility of the Church seriously enough, then this definition applies to the churches in communion with Rome as well. You guys may well be less incomplete, or at least incomplete in less fundamental and serious ways. I’m not entirely sure that’s true, but I don’t think there’s an easy way to compare different ways of being “incomplete.” More reasonably, your errors may well not be as official as ours. I think that almost certainly is true. (Although some of your teachings, like indulgence theology, can only be salvaged by extremely creative redefinition, pretty much of a “Tract 90” level.)

No, they claim to be part of the catholic church. The universal church. It’s just an adjective, not an identifier.

I don’t follow the distinction between an adjective and an identifier. Nor am I convinced that the typographical convention of capitalization has such earth-shaking importance. It’s a useful way of signalling that the Protestant definition of the Church is more expansive. But it can also be misleading, as your statement indicates, so I gave up using it some years ago. Don’t Catholics also intend to refer to the universal Church when they use the word “Catholic”? Catholics and Protestants are arguing over the definition of the word Catholic. They aren’t talking about two completely different things that happen to be spelled with the same letters.

The catholic church that protestants claim is like the Anglican Church - it doesn’t really exist.

Sure it does. It exists wherever there is a community of baptized people. There’s no reasonable dispute as to whether it exists, only as to whether it is a sufficient definition.

But it used to be. Anglicans used to be just as Catholic as Latins or Orthodox. Henry-8 was named “Defender of the Faith” by Pope Leo-10 (but it was really Thomas Beckett doing the defending). English regents shamefully continue to use this title, even though they have no faith to defend.

Before the schism Anglicanism wasn’t “parallel with Catholicism.” It was part of Catholicism. As, of course, Anglicans think they still are–and clearly are right in thinking so, at least to some degree.

Your statement demonstrates the problems with the Catholic/catholic distinction. You seem to think of Catholicism as something that even before the schism characterized the “Latin” expressions of the Church in contrast to the Eastern or English ones. But that makes no sense historically or theologically (apart from the fact that English Catholicism was “Latin”).

Edwin

Wow, this thread has gone its own way. I have yet to receive any help in regard to my original post. Very disappointing.

Actually our discussion should be a help to you, because it should help you see that in fact “refuting the Articles” may not be as relevant as you initially thought.

Now there certainly are many Anglicans–ACNA conservatives in North America, and more mainstream Anglicans in England, Australia, and other places–who do take the Articles with great seriousness. But the first step in “refuting the Articles” is for you to understand that they do not have the same status in Anglicanism that, say, conciliar pronouncements have in Catholicism. Indeed, the priest who catechized me in Anglicanism taught me that the medieval, post-Schism Western Councils had more authority than the Articles (that’s an extreme position, to be sure–far more common would be the view that the Seven Councils of the “undivided” Church trump the Articles, and far more common yet that the first four Councils do). This is a point that needs to be established before we can give you the “help” you’re looking for.

It would help us help you if you explained just why you want to refute the Articles. As an intellectual exercise, or because you know people who hold to them?

Or in other words, why focus on the Articles in particular and not on classical Protestantism more broadly? The Articles are different from classical Protestantism as a whole only insofar as they are vaguer and less polemical, and thus easier to reconcile with Catholicism. So when you speak of “refuting the Articles,” do you mean “show how classical Protestantism, in this very basic form, is wrong insofar as it differs from Catholicism” or do you mean “show why the Tract 90 approach to the Articles is wrong and they really must be lumped together with Continental Protestant confessions as materially heretical”?

Edwin

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.