This Has to Stop: The Shipwreck of the Anti-Francis Mindset

Read more »

Love and Truth Will Meet—and Apparently Say "See Ya"

¹¹ Love and truth will meet; 

justice and peace will kiss. 

¹² Truth will spring from the earth; 

justice will look down from heaven. (Psalm 85:11–12).

Introduction

There’s an ugly battle flaming up between Catholics when it comes to the Orlando mass shooting. it’s a battle over how to address the people who have a same sex attraction when it comes to condolences. Are they a community? Or are they not? The dispute is over whether one should send condolences to the “LGBT community” or whether that would look like an endorsement of sinful acts. This seems like something which they can resolve charitably. Unfortunately, it’s gotten to the point where the two sides are practically throwing anathemas at each other, assuming the other side is guilty of bad will or even malice.

Setting Up the Situation

To sum up the two positions briefly (and hopefully, fairly):

1. Those who think we should use term “LGBT community” say this is no different than referring to “the black community” or the “Jewish community,” and nobody should take offense or think this is an endorsement of sinful behavior.
2. Those who oppose the use say that grouping people by their inclination or behavior is not the same as real ethnic or religious communities, but instead equates people with their behavior. Also, given the tendency of the media to present such things as “CHURCH TO CHANGE TEACHING” headlines, it does matter whether or not Catholics use this term.

So the question is over whether calling people with a disordered attraction a community is in keeping with the command to love the sinner and speaking against the sin.

There’s no official teaching on the proper form here. The official statement from the Holy See said:

The terrible massacre that has taken place in Orlando, with its dreadfully high number of innocent victims, has caused in Pope Francis, and in all of us, the deepest feelings of horror and condemnation, of pain and turmoil before this new manifestation of homicidal folly and senseless hatred. Pope Francis joins the families of the victims and all of the injured in prayer and in compassion. Sharing in their indescribable suffering he entrusts them to the Lord so they may find comfort. We all hope that ways may be found, as soon as possible, to effectively identify and contrast the causes of such terrible and absurd violence which so deeply upsets the desire for peace of the American people and of the whole of humanity.

The Pope did not use the term, but there’s no doubt he was clear in condemning an evil act and showing love and compassion for victims and their families. So, unless wants to condemn the Pope, there is nothing wrong with avoiding the term. On the other hand, some bishops did use the term in sending condolences and Catholics dispute whether this was right.

Here’s the Problem

The problem with this debate is many debaters are openly insulting of the other side, accusing them of being bad Catholics. Hotheads among Catholics who support using the term “LGBT community” accuse those who don’t like it of bigotry and a lack of compassion for the victims and their families. Hotheads among Catholics opposed to the term accuse those who do use it of heresy and sending a false message to the world. Neither side is free of inflammatory rhetoric (So don’t go pointing fingers at the other side).

But people are assuming that a dispute proves a lack of love or a neglect of truth. Yes, we want to show compassion to the victims and their families. Yes, we want to condemn the mass shooting as something evil regardless of how the victims lived. But we also must make clear (where fitting) that our moral beliefs are not going to change because of the evil some do.

So, we have an obligation. Before we condemn a Catholic for being heretical or hateful, we have to know the intentions the speaker or writer had. Does the person who uses the term “LGBT community” mean to endorse something against Church teaching? Or is this a case of simply not thinking about the potential meanings people might draw from it? Does the person who does not use the term mean to show hatred to the victims? Or is it a case of wanting to be clear about where the Church stands?

What gets overlooked is the fact that a person may not intend what the listener/reader believes it the point. We should strive to speak clearly. But not all will have the same talent in doing so. We have to realize that condolences phrased differently than we like may not mean support of evil. It is possible the speaker is unclear or we have simply misunderstood because we give words meaning that the speaker does not intend. If the speaker uses the term, but does not mean to support sin, we must not condemn him for heresy. if the speaker does not use the term, but does not act out of hatred in doing so, we must not condemn him of bigotry. It is only when we know the person acts from a bad motive, that we can offer a rebuke.

Conclusion

It’s hypocrisy to love the person far away and hate our brother. God, who told us to love our enemies, also told us to love our neighbor as ourself. So if we call for love and compassion for the victims, but will not show it for the fellow Christian who we argue with, we are doing wrong. It’s time to stop accusing each other of bad will and time to start understanding what the other person meant, accepting different views as valid when they are compatible with Catholic belief and gently guiding them back when they are not.

Savaging each other over disagreements because we assume the other is deliberately choosing to do evil is rash judgment and we become hypocrites if we refuse to love our fellow Christian.

To Speak the Truth

Introduction

People who know me know that I like Aristotle’s definition of truth. It is a simple definition and it lays out parameters for understanding the reality of what is said:

To say that what is is not, or that what is not is, is false; but to say that what is is, and what is not is not, is true; and therefore also he who says that a thing is or is not will say either what is true or what is false. (Metaphysics 1011b.20–39)

Aristotle, Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vols.17, 18, Translated by Hugh Tredennick. (Medford, MA: Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd., 1933, 1989).

So, when we speak, what we say either corresponds to reality or it does not. Unfortunately, society today does not seem to care for discovering what corresponds with reality. Rather many people prefer an interpretation of events that justifies themselves and puts those they agree with in a bad light. The result of this mindset is the fact that people will only listen to what makes them comfortable and seek to reject what makes them uncomfortable. But if what makes them comfortable is false, then their sources are harmful in seeking out the truth and living in accordance with it.

Pride and Fear of Being Shown Wrong

Compounding the problem is the fact that nobody wants to be shown to be wrong. To admit that one’s viewpoint, which has been defended zealously hitherto, has been a defense of something worthless feels like an indictment of one’s judgment—nobody wants to be thought of as a fool and admission of error is seen as admitting to being a fool. That is what made Socrates so unpopular. That barrier of pride is a large stumbling block to discovering what is and living in accord to it.

I think this is the reason it has traditionally been held that the two taboo subjects for discussion are religion and politics. For a person to have to admit that their view of reality in general or their views on how society should be governed are false—especially when they have invested so much in defending these views—is often too much to bear. As a result, people stop looking for truth when it is perceived to threaten their comfortable beliefs and become hostile when it comes to people who question their comfort zone.

That’s unfortunate. To make progress, whether as an individual or a society, one has to discern what is true and follow where it leads. But if one refuses to consider whether what is threatening to comfort is true, no progress can be made.

Fear of the Obligation to do That Which is Right

There is another reason for hostility to truth. That reason is the recognition that if what we support turns out to be false, especially when that falsehood turns out to be morally wrong, we will be obligated to turn away from that belief or that behavior. Denial of that indictment of wrongdoing and hostility to the person who makes us aware of the wrongdoing are ways to avoid thinking about whether we need to change. This is one of the reasons that defensive people misquote Matthew 7:1. If a person can turn tables on the person who says “X is wrong,” putting him or her on the defensive by making it appear that the appeal to doing what is right is actually wrongdoing, then people have shifted the attention from the issue at hand—that X is wrong—and towards the person who insists on moral truths which are obligatory to follow.

“Hypocrisy” then becomes a popular epithet to hurl at the person speaking the truth. Basically the accusation says “You say not to do evil X, but you do evil by saying that X is wrong. Therefore we can ignore you!” Actually no. It is true that every one of us struggles with some sort of evil (with the exception of Our Lord and His Mother). But one does not become a hypocrite until they have no intention to change their ways. That’s the kind of thing Jesus condemned as judgmental—writing someone off as irredeemable. But frail as we are, we are still required to speak out against what is wrong while praying for God to change our hearts for our own sins. We must avoid thinking that “As long as I’m not as bad as that guy, I’m fine."

Truth and Assumption

Of course we need to make some distinctions here. It’s not wrong to defend a position one thinks is right. But all of us need to distinguish what is true about the position it and defend that truth, as opposed to defending assumptions without investigating whether they are true. Some things are simply indefensible and must be rejected.

Moreover, many people assume things are facts without discerning whether they are true or simply commonly repeated but false. People sometimes elevate wrong opinions or falsehoods to “fact.” For example, they may confuse sequential events for cause/effect and then stand their ground on something that does not need to be defended. Or they may assume anecdotes represent the whole or go by what “everybody knows” without determining whether it is true. People may rashly assume motives for why others hold different positions which the other person would deny are his or her motives.

The point is, many things we take for granted as being true are actually saying of what is that it is not or saying of what is not that it is. Once we are aware of the obligation to speak that which is true, and the need to discern between what is true and what is assumed, then we need to look to what we defend and what we oppose. Do we defend what is true? Or what is comfortable? Do we oppose what is false? Or merely what we dislike?

If we assume bad will on the part of those we disagree with and don’t consider the possibility of our own misunderstanding of the other person or if we don’t consider the possibility of the person being in error out of ignorance, then we are making an assumption that might not be true.

Conclusion

I think we need to keep these things in mind wherever we are. When things are reported on the news, or show up on Facebook or in blogs, or in comments, we have to ask whether what is said is true before embracing it. When something seems to challenge a comfortable belief, we have to ask whether our comfortable belief is true before making a defense based on our assumption. If it turns out that the popular or comfortable assertion is false, we must stop repeating it.

Likewise, when we are inclined to accuse a person of bad will for holding a position we do not like, the obligation to speak the truth requires that we investigate their position and the reason they hold it. We might find that they still are in error and need to be refuted, but at least in doing so we will not come across as intolerant and ignorant—even if opponents still accuse us of being so.

As Christians we believe that God forbids us from bearing false witness. I believe this not only includes deliberate lies used to incriminate others, but also includes rash judgment and calumny against those we disagree with. While invincible ignorance is not a sin, we do sin when we repeat things when we could learn the truth but simply don’t care to do so. We will have to account for our rash judgments, uncharitable accusations and holding on to false beliefs and will be held accountable for the things we could have learned but chose not to check. This also applies to when we choose to live a lie rather than discern whether we do wrong. 

We are called to speak and live the truth. So let us do both. Let us say of what is, that it is and of what is not, that it is not. But let’s not just say it. Let’s also live it.

Marked

Read more »

TFTD: Teaching a Falsehood

Introduction: An Example of False Teaching and Its Refutation by Fact

I came across this in a work by Presbyterian theologian and known critic of the Catholic Church, RC Sproul. In discussing the meaning of “The Lord’s Supper,” he tries to represent the Catholic position as follows:

There was also another point that was a matter of controversy in the Lord’s Supper. This had to do with the church’s understanding of what actually happens in the drama of the Mass. After the consecration takes place, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that what happens in the Mass is the repetition of the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. Now, the church makes it clear that this repetition of the sacrifice is done in a non-bloody way; nevertheless, they insist that the sacrifice is a real sacrifice. So even though it’s a non-bloody offering, Christ is truly and really sacrificed afresh every time the Mass is offered. The Reformers found that to be blasphemous, as it was a complete rejection of what the book of Hebrews tells us, namely, that Christ offered Himself once and for all (Heb. 10:10). The sufficiency and the perfection of the atonement that Christ made on Calvary was so thorough that to repeat it would be to denigrate the supreme value of the once-for-all atonement that had been made there.

 

[Sproul, R. C. (2013). What Is the Lord’s Supper? (First edition., p. 57). Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust.]

However, when one actually bothers to look up what the Church teaches about the Eucharist, the Catechism of the Catholic Church effectively contradicts the claims of Sproul:

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit: (613)

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.

 

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner … this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.” (1545)

In other words, what RC Sproul claims we believe is false. We Catholics deny that the Mass is a repetition of the Sacrifice at Calvary. We instead believe that the Sacrifice of Christ at Mass is made present on the altar. And lest anybody think this is a recent change to Church teaching, let’s go back to the teaching of the Council of Trent:

940 [DS 1743] And since in this divine sacrifice, which is celebrated in the Mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who on the altar of the Cross “once offered Himself” in a bloody manner [Heb. 9:27], the holy Synod teaches that this is truly propitiatory [can. 3], and has this effect, that if contrite and penitent We approach God with a sincere heart and right faith, with fear and reverence, “we obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid” [Heb. 4:16]. For, appeased by this oblation, the Lord, granting the grace and gift of penitence, pardons crimes and even great sins. For, it is one and the same Victim, the same one now offering by the ministry of the priests as He who then offered Himself on the Cross, the manner of offering alone being different. The fruits of that oblation (bloody, that is) are received most abundantly through this un-bloody one; so far is the latter from being derogatory in any way to Him [can. 4]. Therefore, it is offered rightly according to the tradition of the apostles [can. 3], not only for the sins of the faithful living, for their punishments and other necessities, but also for the dead in Christ not yet fully purged.

[Denzinger, H., & Rahner, K. (Eds.). (1954). The Sources of Catholic dogma. (R. J. Deferrari, Trans.) (pp. 289–290). St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co.]

So, we can see here that even at the time that the Protestants were objecting to our “re-sacrificing” Jesus, we were saying it was not a re-sacrifice. We are celebrating the sacrifice of Our Lord which is made present on the altar in a non-bloody manner. In other words, what happens in the Mass is The Sacrifice, not another sacrifice.

The Danger of Teaching Falsehood—Accidentally or Deliberately

So, remembering that Aristotle identified truth as, “saying of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not,” we can see that Sproul did not say of what is that it is. So Sproul did not teach the truth. Whether he spoke sincerely or not, what he said was a falsehood. So it is clear that when it comes to speaking about the Catholic Church, Sproul is not a reliable witness. It leaves us with the question of his motive. Was he ignorant and sincere? Or did he know what we believe and pass this teaching on anyway in spite of his knowledge? Logically, we can say, either he knew or did not know that his words were false.

Either way, his actions are wrong in the eyes of God (Proverbs 19:9 for example). If he did not know that his actions were false, he certainly had the obligation to be certain he was speaking the truth before passing on somebody else’s false witness or rash judgment. If he did know he was speaking falsehood, then he violated the commandment against bearing false witness, which is an abomination (Proverbs 12:22).

God alone will judge him. I do not know whether he honestly believes what he wrote or not. Personally, I think he just passed on what he was told without ever questioning whether or not it was accurate. But consider the fallout of this decision. How many people has he led astray by saying these things? He is known for his books and recordings and videos. Every person he teaches wrongly will continue the teaching of error. At the very least that person wrongly taught will believe a falsehood about the Catholic Church which interferes with his or her ability to learn the truth. At the worst, this person will continue to pass this falsehood on as if it were true, infecting even more people.

Applying The Lesson

I did not write this article in order to bash Sproul or condemn him—in fact I pray for Him. I wrote of this offensive example to show that when we speak or write falsely—whether by failing to assess whether it is true or with full knowledge of the falseness—we do harm to others. This applies to Protestants maligning Catholics. It applies to Catholics maligning the Pope. Whether done by one sincere in their error or by someone who knows it is false, such statements block people from finding the truth, especially truths that lead us to how God wants us to live.

That’s why we must refute the falsehoods spoken.

Works Alone: The Protestant Claim that Slanders and Libels Catholicism

libel

[Arnobius of Sicca note: Ugh… I meant "Libel" but typed "slander."  Edited to fix]

■ n.

1 Law the publication of a false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation. Compare with slander.

† such a statement; a written defamation.

1 Law defame by publishing a libel.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Introduction

I've been forcing myself to read the novel Left Behind (I figure I should be aware of famous works, even if I think they are in error), which is a story about the so-called Rapture.  As I do so, I am reminded of a theme among certain Protestants (often repeated) which is an act of libel against the Catholic Church.  That is the claim that Catholics believe we earn our salvation by doing "good works," and we are "owed" salvation if we do enough regardless of whether or not we believe in Christ.

Such a statement is so much repeated, especially among certain Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, that many would be surprised to learn we do not believe this at all.

That's right… one of the major arguments used to denounce the Catholic Church is a complete falsehood.

Some Evidence

Let's not get into an argument about whether I am "deceived" about what the Catholic Church really teaches.  We'll do this by pointing not to my own writings, but to what the Church herself says about justification, grace and works.

In terms of Justification:

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:⁴⁰

• But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.⁴¹ (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

We believe when it comes to Grace:

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.⁴⁶

1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God's gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.⁴⁷ (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

When it comes to merit, we profess:

2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. the fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us "co-heirs" with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life."⁶⁰ The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.⁶¹ "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due.... Our merits are God's gifts."⁶²

Nor is this merely a late change as some might accuse.  The Catechism of the Council of Trent  of the 16th century says:

For the grace of Christ is seen to abound more, inasmuch as it communicates to us not only what He merited and paid of Himself alone, but also what, as Head, He merited and paid in His members, that is, in holy and just men. Hence it can be seen how such great weight and dignity belong to the good actions of the pious. For Christ our Lord continually infuses His grace into the devout soul united to Him by charity, as the head to the members, or as the vine through the branches. This grace always precedes, accompanies and follows our good works, and without it we can have no merit, nor can we at all satisfy God.  (emphasis added)

I believe this evidence should be enough to demonstrate that we believe our justification, grace and merits come from God and (if one follows the links) even the good we do is made possible by God.

I think it should be clear that the person who claims the Catholic believes God "owes" us anything on the grounds we "earn" our salvation by doing works slanders or libels us (depending on whether the accuser speaks or writes).  We have no belief whatsoever about doing [X] amount of works or saying [Y] number of prayers will guarantee us Heaven.  We believe God calls us to be faithful to Him and carry out His commands out of love for Him.  Christ has said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15).  In a relationship of love, a person doesn't ask "How much do I have to do?"  The person who loves does what he or she does as an expression of love.

The Implication

Now the person who repeats such a claim may not be acting with malice.  He or she may sincerely believe what is said against us.

That does not let the individual off the hook however.  To repeat a claim without finding out if it is true is unjust indeed.  If I should repeat that Jones is a murderer simply on the grounds I have been told this, I am to blame for repeating a slander if Jones is innocent.

There's also another serious implication here: Protestantism has at least one false premise in its rejection of Catholicism.

Think of it.  One of the reasons of the rejection of the Catholic Church was the belief that the Church put a person on an endless and futile quest to do "enough" to earn salvation.  Yet we don't believe what we are accused of.  Thus one justification for breaking away is… unjustified.  In placing Sola Fide in opposition to "Works Alone" a straw man fallacy is committed.

1. The Catholic Church Holds [X]
2. The Anti-Catholic presents the Church as holding [Y] (a distortion of [X])
3. Position [Y] is attacked.
4. The illusion is The Catholic Church has been refuted on [X]

The truth is, the attack on [Y] is irrelevant.  The Church teaching is [X] and it is [X] which needs to be examined.

To continue to accuse the Church of [Y] is to slander or libel the Church, whether through malice or negligence.

negligence

■ n. failure to take proper care over something.

† Law breach of a duty of care which results in damage.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Works Alone: The Protestant Claim that Slanders and Libels Catholicism

libel

[Arnobius of Sicca note: Ugh… I meant "Libel" but typed "slander."  Edited to fix]

■ n.

1 Law the publication of a false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation. Compare with slander.

† such a statement; a written defamation.

1 Law defame by publishing a libel.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Introduction

I've been forcing myself to read the novel Left Behind (I figure I should be aware of famous works, even if I think they are in error), which is a story about the so-called Rapture.  As I do so, I am reminded of a theme among certain Protestants (often repeated) which is an act of libel against the Catholic Church.  That is the claim that Catholics believe we earn our salvation by doing "good works," and we are "owed" salvation if we do enough regardless of whether or not we believe in Christ.

Such a statement is so much repeated, especially among certain Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, that many would be surprised to learn we do not believe this at all.

That's right… one of the major arguments used to denounce the Catholic Church is a complete falsehood.

Some Evidence

Let's not get into an argument about whether I am "deceived" about what the Catholic Church really teaches.  We'll do this by pointing not to my own writings, but to what the Church herself says about justification, grace and works.

In terms of Justification:

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:⁴⁰

• But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.⁴¹ (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

We believe when it comes to Grace:

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.⁴⁶

1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God's gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.⁴⁷ (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

When it comes to merit, we profess:

2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. the fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us "co-heirs" with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life."⁶⁰ The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.⁶¹ "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due.... Our merits are God's gifts."⁶²

Nor is this merely a late change as some might accuse.  The Catechism of the Council of Trent  of the 16th century says:

For the grace of Christ is seen to abound more, inasmuch as it communicates to us not only what He merited and paid of Himself alone, but also what, as Head, He merited and paid in His members, that is, in holy and just men. Hence it can be seen how such great weight and dignity belong to the good actions of the pious. For Christ our Lord continually infuses His grace into the devout soul united to Him by charity, as the head to the members, or as the vine through the branches. This grace always precedes, accompanies and follows our good works, and without it we can have no merit, nor can we at all satisfy God.  (emphasis added)

I believe this evidence should be enough to demonstrate that we believe our justification, grace and merits come from God and (if one follows the links) even the good we do is made possible by God.

I think it should be clear that the person who claims the Catholic believes God "owes" us anything on the grounds we "earn" our salvation by doing works slanders or libels us (depending on whether the accuser speaks or writes).  We have no belief whatsoever about doing [X] amount of works or saying [Y] number of prayers will guarantee us Heaven.  We believe God calls us to be faithful to Him and carry out His commands out of love for Him.  Christ has said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15).  In a relationship of love, a person doesn't ask "How much do I have to do?"  The person who loves does what he or she does as an expression of love.

The Implication

Now the person who repeats such a claim may not be acting with malice.  He or she may sincerely believe what is said against us.

That does not let the individual off the hook however.  To repeat a claim without finding out if it is true is unjust indeed.  If I should repeat that Jones is a murderer simply on the grounds I have been told this, I am to blame for repeating a slander if Jones is innocent.

There's also another serious implication here: Protestantism has at least one false premise in its rejection of Catholicism.

Think of it.  One of the reasons of the rejection of the Catholic Church was the belief that the Church put a person on an endless and futile quest to do "enough" to earn salvation.  Yet we don't believe what we are accused of.  Thus one justification for breaking away is… unjustified.  In placing Sola Fide in opposition to "Works Alone" a straw man fallacy is committed.

1. The Catholic Church Holds [X]
2. The Anti-Catholic presents the Church as holding [Y] (a distortion of [X])
3. Position [Y] is attacked.
4. The illusion is The Catholic Church has been refuted on [X]

The truth is, the attack on [Y] is irrelevant.  The Church teaching is [X] and it is [X] which needs to be examined.

To continue to accuse the Church of [Y] is to slander or libel the Church, whether through malice or negligence.

negligence

■ n. failure to take proper care over something.

† Law breach of a duty of care which results in damage.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Anti-Catholicism and False Witness

Preliminary Notes

I am aware that only a minority of non-Catholics are anti-Catholics, so I would hope the non-Catholic who reads this article and does not hold anti-Catholic views would recognize this article is not directed to them.  I do not hold you responsible for those claims, and believe you seek to do what is right even if you disagree with the Church.

For those who would argue the false claims are true, spare me the unattributed quotes ("Well Pope so-and so said thus and so from some unnamed source") from some unhistorical source ("Well, Rev. Jim Bob said this…!").  If you want to claim the Catholic Church taught something evil, link me the document, not what some person claims the document says.  Likewise, if you want to argue there were real "secret Christians" who taught the truth, again, link me the document and not what some person claims was the truth.  Give me documents where the alleged Papal quote was made, not some quote whose source is simply some other book where we have no idea whether it was in context or not.

I would also hope that all readers who might repeat old tales against the Catholic Church would remember that false witness is a sin, and to repeat something falsely either knowing it is false or not verifying whether it is true is bearing false witness.

• You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.  (Ex 20:16).
• The false witness will not go unpunished, and he who utters lies will perish.  (Pr 19:9).
• You know the commandments: ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.’  (Mk 10:19).

/Facepalm

I came across a post by someone who claimed he was not anti-Catholic — and then went on to repeat the tired old canards about the Catholic Church, accusing the Church of being corrupt.  Funny sort of "not-anti-Catholic."

Displaying an ignorance of history and of what Catholics believed, he demonstrated a good deal of prejudice which he apparently thought was true: Of the Church being corrupted by government and "inventing" doctrines, and eventually the truth being rediscovered by Protestants.

I don't see the need to actually link to the site.  The author has said nothing which was not said a thousand times before since the 16th century, so why give his site notoriety?

Now I have no doubt he actually believed this garbage, and so did the people who "recommended" the post to me.

Unfortunately this indicates there are people who rely on the tired old lies repeated over and over, who believe that the Church didn't believe in Transubstantiation until AD 1215, didn't define the canon of Scripture until 1546, and so on.

How Does Anti-Catholicism Differ From Disagreement with the Catholic Church?

I recognize that some people disagree with the Catholic Church on doctrinal grounds and believe the Church got it wrong.  They act in good faith and try to refute the Church from what they believe to be authoritative sources.

However, anti-Catholics are generally people who are not focussing so much on teaching what they believe.  Rather they focus on the alleged wrongs in the Catholic Church.  Hence the label anti Catholic.  They focus on opposing Catholicism, not defending what they believe to be true.

Anti-Catholics generally approach things from the standing that the Church is evil, and try to dredge up the allegations about how the Church "invented" things and burned 20 million people (as Jimmy Swaggart has claimed), was totally corrupted and so on.  When asked to cite sources, either "everyone knows that" or it comes from indirect sources that have unattributed quotes.

Remember, it is no proof to take quotes out of context.  Luther infamously remarked he could fornicate a hundred times a day and not lose his salvation.  He was wrong of course, but he said this as hyperbole of the assurance of salvation and not to give approval to fornication.

"Proof?  We don’t need no Proof!  I don’t have to show you any stinking Proof!”

Of course such claims do not provide any "proof" (I suspect Loraine Boettner would be the common source directly [person read the book] or indirectly [person heard someone repeating claim from book]).  One who believes Catholicism is wrong and is determined to oppose it is often willing to believe any argument claiming to explain how it went wrong.

The problem is, there is no evidence for any "so-called" true church which Catholicism is alleged to have replaced, while the testimony of the Patristics do bear witness to the Sacramental, Apostolic, Hierarchical Church which exists.  So much is the evidence, that many would argue that the Catholic Church overthrew the 'early church' and replaced it (which would make Christ a liar when He said the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt 16:18) and that He would remain until the end of the world (Matt 28:20).

Cardinal Newman's Clever Remark

Indeed, the absence of proof justifying such a claim that the 'true' church was supplanted by Catholicism is so total that John Henry Cardinal Newman (a convert from Anglicanism who became a Catholic when searching for the early church) made the following statement about the claims of the early church being corrupted by Catholicism:

And this utter incongruity between Protestantism and historical Christianity is a plain fact, whether the latter be regarded in its earlier or in its later centuries. Protestants can as little bear its Ante-nicene as its Post-tridentine period. I have elsewhere observed on this circumstance: 'So much must the Protestant grant that, if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and utterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of what it found in the Church, before cock-crowing: so that 'when they rose in the morning' her true seed 'were all dead corpses'-Nay dead and buried-and without grave-stone. 'The waters went over them; there was not one of them left; they sunk like lead in the mighty waters.' Strange antitype, indeed, to the early fortunes of Israel!-then the enemy was drowned, and 'Israel saw them dead upon the sea-shore.' But now, it would seem, water proceeded as a flood 'out of the serpent's mouth, and covered all the witnesses, so that not even their dead bodies lay in the streets of the great city.' Let him take which of his doctrines he will, his peculiar view of self-righteousness, of formality, of superstition; his notion of faith, or of spirituality in religious worship; his denial {9} of the virtue of the sacraments, or of the ministerial commission, or of the visible Church; or his doctrine of the divine efficacy of the Scriptures as the one appointed instrument of religious teaching; and let him consider how far Antiquity, as it has come down to us, will countenance him in it. No; he must allow that the alleged deluge has done its work; yes, and has in turn disappeared itself; it has been swallowed up by the earth, mercilessly as itself was merciless.' (The Development of Christian Doctrine Introduction, part 6, Emphasis added)

In other words, the alleged destruction of the so-called 'true church' was so total that we can find no evidence that this church ever existed, AND we can find no trace of whatever destroyed this early Church.

I Don't Buy Claims that "Everyone Knows" but Nobody can Prove

That's kind of hard to swallow, isn't it?  Quite frankly, if I see anyone claiming my Church invented doctrine, I want to see the proof of when it was invented, and I want to see the so-called 'true Christians' of the time who were obligated to defend the faith speaking out against it.  We know of the Christians testifying to the truth against the pagans.  We know of them rejecting Gnosticism, Modalism, Donatism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Pelagianism and Iconoclasm (among others) — often at the risk (or loss) of their lives.

These saints died for the truth of the faith, and we know of the accounts of their deaths… yet we know nothing of those who were obligated to stand up for the faith, yet stayed silent for over a thousand years.

Why is it, that when three quarters of the Empire became Arianism, it was only Rome which stood as a defender of the Trinity?  In the face of all of these heresies, it was Rome leading the way, supporting those who defended the true faith and saying "No, these are lies about our Lord," to the heresies.

Why is it, we know of the heroism of St. John Chrysostom (AD 349-407) who died in exile because he dared defend the Church against Empress Eudoxia and we know about Pope Innocent I defending him… but we know nothing about the so-called "early Christians" who allegedly held the "true" faith against Catholicism?

Why do we have thousands of pages written by St. Augustine (AD 354-430) against the Manichees, the Donatists and the Pelagians, but not one fourth or fifth century defender of Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura?

Not Argument from Silence

The argument from silence fallacy essentially argues that since there is no argument against a position, it must be true, or because there is no argument for a position it must be false.

However, when there is evidence one way, but none against it becomes apparent that the evidence favors the one way.

Bearing False Witness

To speak truly, one has to say of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not.

If one says something is, when it is not or is not when it is, this is not truth.

Now, if a person knows he is speaking something untrue, he is a liar and bears false witness.  if a person speaks something untrue, thinking it is true, his innocence or guilt will depend on whether it was possible to learn the truth or not. If he could find out and does not, he libels or slanders another and is considered negligent in not checking before speaking.

Now we come to bearing witness against the Catholic Church.  Can one find out what we believe by doing research from credible sources?  Indeed.  One can find out from Catholic sites what we believe about others, and one can seek out unbiased history accounts.

However, if one is known to hate the Church or believe it to be evil, it is possible such a source is not objective.  He might rashly believe the worst about the Church.  He might think his ignorance of what the Church believes in comparison to his personal reading of the Bible means the Church "invented" things.  Or possibly, he might believe that in opposing the "evil" of the Church that a "slight" exaggeration is all right.

However, there is no justification to repeating falsehoods against another, and no justification to repeating negative things about another without verifying them to be true first.

Anti-Catholicism and False Witness

Preliminary Notes

I am aware that only a minority of non-Catholics are anti-Catholics, so I would hope the non-Catholic who reads this article and does not hold anti-Catholic views would recognize this article is not directed to them.  I do not hold you responsible for those claims, and believe you seek to do what is right even if you disagree with the Church.

For those who would argue the false claims are true, spare me the unattributed quotes ("Well Pope so-and so said thus and so from some unnamed source") from some unhistorical source ("Well, Rev. Jim Bob said this…!").  If you want to claim the Catholic Church taught something evil, link me the document, not what some person claims the document says.  Likewise, if you want to argue there were real "secret Christians" who taught the truth, again, link me the document and not what some person claims was the truth.  Give me documents where the alleged Papal quote was made, not some quote whose source is simply some other book where we have no idea whether it was in context or not.

I would also hope that all readers who might repeat old tales against the Catholic Church would remember that false witness is a sin, and to repeat something falsely either knowing it is false or not verifying whether it is true is bearing false witness.

• You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.  (Ex 20:16).
• The false witness will not go unpunished, and he who utters lies will perish.  (Pr 19:9).
• You know the commandments: ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.’  (Mk 10:19).

/Facepalm

I came across a post by someone who claimed he was not anti-Catholic — and then went on to repeat the tired old canards about the Catholic Church, accusing the Church of being corrupt.  Funny sort of "not-anti-Catholic."

Displaying an ignorance of history and of what Catholics believed, he demonstrated a good deal of prejudice which he apparently thought was true: Of the Church being corrupted by government and "inventing" doctrines, and eventually the truth being rediscovered by Protestants.

I don't see the need to actually link to the site.  The author has said nothing which was not said a thousand times before since the 16th century, so why give his site notoriety?

Now I have no doubt he actually believed this garbage, and so did the people who "recommended" the post to me.

Unfortunately this indicates there are people who rely on the tired old lies repeated over and over, who believe that the Church didn't believe in Transubstantiation until AD 1215, didn't define the canon of Scripture until 1546, and so on.

How Does Anti-Catholicism Differ From Disagreement with the Catholic Church?

I recognize that some people disagree with the Catholic Church on doctrinal grounds and believe the Church got it wrong.  They act in good faith and try to refute the Church from what they believe to be authoritative sources.

However, anti-Catholics are generally people who are not focussing so much on teaching what they believe.  Rather they focus on the alleged wrongs in the Catholic Church.  Hence the label anti Catholic.  They focus on opposing Catholicism, not defending what they believe to be true.

Anti-Catholics generally approach things from the standing that the Church is evil, and try to dredge up the allegations about how the Church "invented" things and burned 20 million people (as Jimmy Swaggart has claimed), was totally corrupted and so on.  When asked to cite sources, either "everyone knows that" or it comes from indirect sources that have unattributed quotes.

Remember, it is no proof to take quotes out of context.  Luther infamously remarked he could fornicate a hundred times a day and not lose his salvation.  He was wrong of course, but he said this as hyperbole of the assurance of salvation and not to give approval to fornication.

"Proof?  We don’t need no Proof!  I don’t have to show you any stinking Proof!”

Of course such claims do not provide any "proof" (I suspect Loraine Boettner would be the common source directly [person read the book] or indirectly [person heard someone repeating claim from book]).  One who believes Catholicism is wrong and is determined to oppose it is often willing to believe any argument claiming to explain how it went wrong.

The problem is, there is no evidence for any "so-called" true church which Catholicism is alleged to have replaced, while the testimony of the Patristics do bear witness to the Sacramental, Apostolic, Hierarchical Church which exists.  So much is the evidence, that many would argue that the Catholic Church overthrew the 'early church' and replaced it (which would make Christ a liar when He said the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt 16:18) and that He would remain until the end of the world (Matt 28:20).

Cardinal Newman's Clever Remark

Indeed, the absence of proof justifying such a claim that the 'true' church was supplanted by Catholicism is so total that John Henry Cardinal Newman (a convert from Anglicanism who became a Catholic when searching for the early church) made the following statement about the claims of the early church being corrupted by Catholicism:

And this utter incongruity between Protestantism and historical Christianity is a plain fact, whether the latter be regarded in its earlier or in its later centuries. Protestants can as little bear its Ante-nicene as its Post-tridentine period. I have elsewhere observed on this circumstance: 'So much must the Protestant grant that, if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and utterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of what it found in the Church, before cock-crowing: so that 'when they rose in the morning' her true seed 'were all dead corpses'-Nay dead and buried-and without grave-stone. 'The waters went over them; there was not one of them left; they sunk like lead in the mighty waters.' Strange antitype, indeed, to the early fortunes of Israel!-then the enemy was drowned, and 'Israel saw them dead upon the sea-shore.' But now, it would seem, water proceeded as a flood 'out of the serpent's mouth, and covered all the witnesses, so that not even their dead bodies lay in the streets of the great city.' Let him take which of his doctrines he will, his peculiar view of self-righteousness, of formality, of superstition; his notion of faith, or of spirituality in religious worship; his denial {9} of the virtue of the sacraments, or of the ministerial commission, or of the visible Church; or his doctrine of the divine efficacy of the Scriptures as the one appointed instrument of religious teaching; and let him consider how far Antiquity, as it has come down to us, will countenance him in it. No; he must allow that the alleged deluge has done its work; yes, and has in turn disappeared itself; it has been swallowed up by the earth, mercilessly as itself was merciless.' (The Development of Christian Doctrine Introduction, part 6, Emphasis added)

In other words, the alleged destruction of the so-called 'true church' was so total that we can find no evidence that this church ever existed, AND we can find no trace of whatever destroyed this early Church.

I Don't Buy Claims that "Everyone Knows" but Nobody can Prove

That's kind of hard to swallow, isn't it?  Quite frankly, if I see anyone claiming my Church invented doctrine, I want to see the proof of when it was invented, and I want to see the so-called 'true Christians' of the time who were obligated to defend the faith speaking out against it.  We know of the Christians testifying to the truth against the pagans.  We know of them rejecting Gnosticism, Modalism, Donatism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Pelagianism and Iconoclasm (among others) — often at the risk (or loss) of their lives.

These saints died for the truth of the faith, and we know of the accounts of their deaths… yet we know nothing of those who were obligated to stand up for the faith, yet stayed silent for over a thousand years.

Why is it, that when three quarters of the Empire became Arianism, it was only Rome which stood as a defender of the Trinity?  In the face of all of these heresies, it was Rome leading the way, supporting those who defended the true faith and saying "No, these are lies about our Lord," to the heresies.

Why is it, we know of the heroism of St. John Chrysostom (AD 349-407) who died in exile because he dared defend the Church against Empress Eudoxia and we know about Pope Innocent I defending him… but we know nothing about the so-called "early Christians" who allegedly held the "true" faith against Catholicism?

Why do we have thousands of pages written by St. Augustine (AD 354-430) against the Manichees, the Donatists and the Pelagians, but not one fourth or fifth century defender of Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura?

Not Argument from Silence

The argument from silence fallacy essentially argues that since there is no argument against a position, it must be true, or because there is no argument for a position it must be false.

However, when there is evidence one way, but none against it becomes apparent that the evidence favors the one way.

Bearing False Witness

To speak truly, one has to say of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not.

If one says something is, when it is not or is not when it is, this is not truth.

Now, if a person knows he is speaking something untrue, he is a liar and bears false witness.  if a person speaks something untrue, thinking it is true, his innocence or guilt will depend on whether it was possible to learn the truth or not. If he could find out and does not, he libels or slanders another and is considered negligent in not checking before speaking.

Now we come to bearing witness against the Catholic Church.  Can one find out what we believe by doing research from credible sources?  Indeed.  One can find out from Catholic sites what we believe about others, and one can seek out unbiased history accounts.

However, if one is known to hate the Church or believe it to be evil, it is possible such a source is not objective.  He might rashly believe the worst about the Church.  He might think his ignorance of what the Church believes in comparison to his personal reading of the Bible means the Church "invented" things.  Or possibly, he might believe that in opposing the "evil" of the Church that a "slight" exaggeration is all right.

However, there is no justification to repeating falsehoods against another, and no justification to repeating negative things about another without verifying them to be true first.