Fraternizing with the Enemy

When I first read this, my response was this.

But then someone reminded me of this:

Now the publicans and sinners drew near unto him to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying: This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them.

[Luke 15:1-2]

Scandal!!!1!

And that reminded me of this:

And the Pharisee, who had invited him, seeing it, spoke within himself, saying: This man, if he were if a prophet, would know surely who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him, that she is a sinner.

[Luke 7:39]

Oh Noes!!!!!

I think that these passages are appropriate rejoinders, and the occasion represents a teaching moment: if certain Protestants treat one of their own in this way, we should not be surprised if they likewise think the worst of us Catholics. If they can't "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" with respect to their comrades, it's a fool's errand to hope that they will show any respect to us. It's sad, but there it is.

Ay Caramba

Protestants are falling all over each other in their haste to condemn Michael Horton as a heretic…because he wrote an approving blurb for a book by a Catholic about the theology of Benedict XVI. Horton didn’t approve Catholicism, mind you; he simply approved the book as a useful guide to the Pope’s theology. I suppose he left out the “pope is antichrist” shibboleths, and this is all the evidence needed to condemn him in the eyes of some. One wonders if these folks think Boettner’s rag is the only guide to Catholicism that they’ll ever need.

Meanwhile, a salient point seems to be escaping their view: they do not know why Horton wrote the blurb. This ought to be an essential precondition of judging another’s actions, unless they think that Israel’s “assume the worst” policy is the touchstone of Christian charity. But it’s hard to reconcile that with “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,”—unless maybe you’d like having your name dragged through the Internet mud on the basis of almost zero facts. Horton didn’t even build a potentially suspicious altar. All he did, basically, was to say this: “If you want to know about Pope Benedict’s theology, this is a good book to read.”

And for that, some folks think he should be charged with heresy. But he didn’t say that he agreed with the Pope’s theology, and if agreeing with Catholics on any point is sufficient to warrant the star chamber, then I can think of some others that the critics might want to “investigate,” too. Oh, and about that Holy Trinity thing that you Protestants accept: we Catholics believe that too (in fact, we believed it first). Does that make you ritually unclean?

I think some people need to put down the keyboard, step away from the Internet, and get a breath of fresh air. And maybe have a beer.

Spock’s rejoinder once again proves apposite:

You must learn to govern your passions; they will be your undoing.

Important Points: the author of the first link above, who also wrote this, does not indulge in the witch hunt; rather, some of the comboxers do.

Likewise, beyond saying that he is “disappointed,” TF has not overtly expressed an opinion about Horton’s blurb, other than to ask his “open question.” My only observation would be that rather than suspect him of (the horror!) Catholic sympathies (as TF's question obviously does), he might have asked why Horton wrote the blurb instead of going the “prove you’re innocent” route.

[Update, 11/17/2009:] Horton throws water on the speculation and the critics. I suspect that even this will be insufficient for ESPers amongst the anti-Catholics, who are just so darn good at reading a man’s heart from a single paragraph abstracted from an entire career’s worth of work. But they can never be satisfied anyway. I would be delighted if Horton does convert someday, but that blurb certainly constitutes no evidence warranting hope for that.

Something to Remember You By

I haven't been back to his little blog o' bigotry since then, but today stumbled across this little gem that is like the very seal of anti-Catholic prejudice.

Assuming you mean that it's my personal opinion based on a careful consideration of the claims and historical evidence that Vatican I's teaching was so far afield from history that they must have known their claims were false, I continue to have that position. [source]

I think we could safely describe this as a fruit of the wicked Reformed doctrine of total depravity, by which certain Presbyterians and others justify thinking the worst of their neighbors. It's not just theoretical with them; it's a matter of a practical disposition. They think that we act in bad faith precisely because they believe it is impossible for us to do otherwise. It's not a question of being correct or mistaken with them; it's a question of willful evil (always on the non-Protestant's part).

Ugh. Must be more careful about what junk I read.

It turns out that if you think Humpty Dumpty looks silly...

...you are actually Humpty Dumpty, not Humpty Dumpty. Oh, and you're antisocially bullheaded, too.

Heh.

Whatever. Anything is possible once a man has jumped the shark.

Through the Looking Glass

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

Oh brother

TF jumps the shark, saying that the Holy Father is

the most prominent living enemy of the Christian faith...

I can't think of a more fitting rejoinder than Spock's:

Really, Turretinfan. You must learn to govern your passions; they will be your undoing.

Mind-Reading

I'm writing about this mind-reading business again because, frankly, I find it really galling. It's not just a question of anti-Catholics being wrong about what we do; it's that they have the temerity to make judgments about what we mean by our actions that ignore or discount our own explanations of them. It's disgraceful behavior, and fantastically rude.

It's also marked by historical myopia. It may not be an American or modern evangelical thing, but for most of the world's history any man or woman who failed to kneel in the presence of nobility when expected to do so would have found himself facing terrible consequences. And rightfully so. For it was not reckoned as worship, but as a mark of respect and submission to authority. So the act of kneeling - even before a statue of a saint - is by itself indicative of nothing improper whatsoever. It could only be made an act of idolatry by the intentions of the one kneeling - and Joe Anti-Catholic isn't privy to them. And yet he presumes all the time to detect violations of the first commandment in the heart of the one who kneels. You're wrong, Joe. And the sooner you admit it, the better. Why should we bother listening to anything you say, when you think you know better than we do ourselves what we intend by what we do?

And the same goes for Joe's presumption in declaring our prayers to the saints to be "idolatrous." Hogwash. We know what we are doing, and we know why we do it, and it has nothing to do with making an idol out of a man or woman. And common courtesy, coupled with that charity which thinks the best of another rather than the worst, demands that Joe Anti-Catholic accept it when we say that we are not worshiping the saints. He doesn't know better than we do what we mean by what we do.

And for those who would downplay the significance of intention, I offer the following.

So the children of Ruben, and the children of Gad, and the half tribe of Manasses returned, and parted from the children of Israel in Silo, which is in Chanaan, to go into Galaad the land of their possession, which they had obtained according to the commandment of the Lord by the hand of Moses. And when they were come to banks of the Jordan, in the land of Chanaan, they built an altar immensely great near the Jordan. And when the children of Israel had heard of it, and certain messengers brought them an account that the children of Ruben, and of Gad, and the half tribe of Manasses had built an altar in the land of Chanaan, upon the banks of the Jordan, over against the children of Israel: They all assembled in Silo, to go up and fight against them. And in the mean time they sent to them into the land of Galaad, Phinees the son of Eleazar the priest, And ten princes with him, one of every tribe. Who came to the children of Ruben, and of Gad, and the half tribe of Manasses, into the land of Galaad, and said to them: Thus saith all the people of the Lord: What meaneth this transgression? Why have you forsaken the Lord the God of Israel, building a sacrilegious altar, and revolting from the worship of him? Is it a small thing to you that you sinned with Beelphegor, and the stain of that crime remaineth in us to this day? and many of the people perished. And you have forsaken the Lord to day, and to morrow his wrath will rage against all Israel. But if you think the land of your possession to be unclean, pass over to the land wherein is the tabernacle of the Lord, and dwell among us: only depart not from the Lord, and from our society, by building an altar beside the altar of the Lord our God. Did not Achan the son of Zare transgress the commandment of the Lord, and his wrath lay upon all the people of Israel? And he was but one man, and would to God he alone had perished in his wickedness.

And the children of Ruben, and of Gad, and of the half tribe of Manasses answered the princes of the embassage of Israel: The Lord the most mighty God, the Lord the most mighty God, he knoweth, and Israel also shall understand: If with the design of transgression we have set up this altar, let him not save us, but punish us immediately: And if we did it with that mind, that we might lay upon it holocausts, and sacrifice, and victims of peace offerings, let him require and judge: And not rather with this thought and design, that we should say: To morrow your children will say to our children: What have you to do with the Lord the God of Israel? The Lord hath put the river Jordan for a border between us and you, O ye children of Ruben, and ye children of Gad: and therefore you have no part in the Lord. And by this occasion your children shall turn away our children from the fear of the Lord. We therefore thought it best, And said: Let us build us an altar, not for holocausts, nor to offer victims, But for a testimony between us and you, and our posterity and yours, that we may serve the Lord, and that we may have a right to offer both holocausts, and victims and sacrifices of peace offerings: and that your children to morrow may not say to our children: You have no part in the Lord. And if they will say so, they shall answer them: Behold the altar of the Lord, which our fathers made, not for holocausts, nor for sacrifice, but for a testimony between us and you. God keep us from any such wickedness that we should revolt from the Lord, and leave off following his steps, by building an altar to offer holocausts, and sacrifices, and victims, beside the altar of the Lord our God, which is erected before his tabernacle.

And when Phinees the priest, and the princes of the embassage, who were with him, had heard this, they were satisfied: and they admitted most willingly the words of the children of Ruben, and Gad, and of the half tribe of Manasses, And Phinees the priest the son of Eleazar said to them: Now we know that the Lord is with us, because you are not guilty of this revolt, and you have delivered the children of Israel from the hand of the Lord. And he returned with the princes from the children of Ruben and Gad, out of the land of Galaad, into the land of Chanaan, to the children of Israel, and brought them word again. And the saying pleased all that heard it. And the children of Israel praised God, and they no longer said that they would go up against them, and fight, and destroy the land of their possession. And the children of Ruben, and the children of Gad called the altar which they had built, Our testimony, that the Lord is God (Joshua 22:9-34).

So the Transjordan tribes had built an altar, which was contrary to the letter of the Law - but it was their intent in doing so that made their act acceptable.

I'll have to say, though, that the rest of Israel acted with more charity than do Joe Anti-Catholic and his friends. Because they believed the Transjordan tribes when they explained themselves. But we Catholics can't get the same from Joe and friends.

[Update 2008-10-27]: In the combox it occurred to me that I ought to clarify one thing, lest someone get the wrong idea: I am not saying that good intentions cover everything. It is not possible for good intentions to remove the sinfulness of an intrinsically evil act. But just as it is not intrinsically evil to build an altar - see above - so it is not intrinsically evil to kneel before a statue (nor even before a man). Consequently it cannot be said on the basis of the action alone that a Catholic sins when he kneels before a statue, and it cannot be said that a Catholic is committing idolatry when he kneels before a statue. That is a matter of the heart, and it is not subject to judgment by any human court - including our anti-Catholic friends. As a matter of simple charity they are morally obliged to take us at our word when we say that we by no means worship Mary and the Saints.

"Catholics Hate The Bible"

No, really. At least, that's what your average anti-Catholic blogger will say - on the basis of zero actual evidence but some distortions of history.

But do we really hate the Bible?

I suppose we show that we hate it by doing things like this: a public Bible-reading marathon at the start of a synod, intended to highlight the importance of Scripture.

Maybe the anti-Catholic just plain doesn't know what he's talking about.

An hour of my life - gone forever

After a few/several months of blissful avoidance, I stumbled once more into the thicket of Protestant vitriol over at "Beggars All".

After presenting (in very brief form) an argument in defense of the Pope (a popular target of abuse over there) and in reply to a post there, I remarked:

I know, I know - you've heard all that before. Blah blah blah go Reginald and the Catholics. But we've heard your question before too. We can't help it if you don't like the answer. :-)

And the response was just about what I expected.

More to the point, and as I said in conclusion:

We've heard your question (questions, in this case) before. We've heard your objections. We've answered them. We can't help it if you don't like the answers, but I doubt that's the real problem. I don't think it's possible for us to offer answers that you would accept.

Isn't that right? Sure it is.

Life is too short to waste in quarreling. I'm not interested in debate club, and I'm surely not interested in mockery and dismissiveness. Nothing a Catholic says to the folks there will be adequate, short of declaring for Protestantism. Well, I've been there and done that, I bought the T-Shirt, the books, the theology, the secret decoder ring, the whole thing. And with God's help I'm not going back. So what do the "Beggars" gang and I have to say to each other on matters of religion? Not much. More's the pity. :-(

The Pope and Communion for Children

It has been suggested someplace that the Pope's recent counsel concerning admission of children to Holy Communion betrays a doctrinal wobbliness that is inconsistent with the Church's claims to dogmatic certainty:

Why does someone need a Pope for simply good advice?

and

But I am still surprised that a consensus of certainty still hasn't been obtained after 2000 years. Especially, as I said, since the sacramental economy is the cornerstone of RC salvation.

Sigh.

Once again those who pretend to understand the Church demonstrate that they really don't.

Admission to Communion is not a question of dogma. It is a question of practice. Because it is a question of practice, it is a question of prudence - of right reason applied to action. And the Church has regulated this prudence in Canon Law. And anyone who bothers to look will see that what the Pope has said is consistent with Canon Law. See canons 912-914:

Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.

Can. 913 §1. The administration of the Most Holy Eucharist to children requires that they have sufficient knowledge and careful preparation so that they understand the mystery of Christ according to their capacity and are able to receive the body of Christ with faith and devotion.

§2. The Most Holy Eucharist, however, can be administered to children in danger of death if they can distinguish the body of Christ from ordinary food and receive communion reverently.

Can. 914 It is primarily the duty of parents and those who take the place of parents, as well as the duty of pastors, to take care that children who have reached the use of reason are prepared properly and, after they have made sacramental confession, are refreshed with this divine food as soon as possible. It is for the pastor to exercise vigilance so that children who have not attained the use of reason or whom he judges are not sufficiently disposed do not approach holy communion.

So we see that there is no rigid standard here, but rather that it is a standard informed by a large measure of prudential judgment - which is precisely what the Holy Father was offering.

Why should we take such uninformed criticisms seriously? If the critic is so flippant as to not even bother to investigate before lobbing the latest grenade, does he deserve a serious response? Probably not. But now I've given one, so it's too late :-)

So Much for Closing on 2 Thessalonians 2:15 with Turretinfan

I was going to do another post - probably only one more - on this topic.

But then I came across comments from Turretinfan in which he suggests that there is some sort of analogy between the Catholic Mass and animal sacrifice in Santeria.

Well, lovely.

Remember what I said about flies, honey, and vinegar? These new remarks would be vinegar.

Boettner - More Examples of Error

When I say "error," I don't just mean issues where we disagree. I mean he just flat-out got things wrong. It exposes the shabbiness of his "research," and for that matter it exposes a deplorable concern for accuracy on the part of his publisher, Presbyterian & Reformed. I'm pretty disappointed in P&R. It was always my impression that they were a very reputable company. Unfortunately the fact that they have kept this thoroughly worthless book in print (with a paperback edition appearing as recently as 2000) shows that I was wrong: Like Boettner they really aren't very concerned with truth at all.

On pp. 204-205 of his diatribe, Boettner writes of the Sacrament of Reconciliation:

For the devout, sincere Roman Catholic salvation depends upon his ability to call to mind while in the confessional all of his sins and to confess them. It is impressed upon him that only that which is confessed can be forgiven. ... What spiritual agony that means for many a soul who fears that he may have omitted some things that should have been told, and that he will have to make amends for them in purgatory!

The error here is that a Catholic is NOT responsible to confess that which he doesn't remember. One must make a sincere examination of his conscience, in good faith, and confess those mortal sins that he remembers. But the priest's absolution covers all sins - not just those confessed - when the penitent is in fact truly repentant, and has in fact made that good faith effort to confess all of his mortal sins. Now, if we afterwards recall some sin that we had not previously confessed explicitly, then we ought to confess it: not because it is not already forgiven, but rather because if we do not, we demonstrate that we do not really care about that sin after all. On p. 200 this same error is repeated: "All mortal sins must be confessed to the priest in detail or they cannot be forgiven." This is true only if we recall them. But that is not what Boettner says - anywhere.

Also on p. 200 there is this simply wretched nonsense:

The theory is that the priest must have all the facts in order to know how to deal with the case and what penance to assign. The real reason, of course, is to place the penitent more fully in the hands of the priest.

Boettner has this outrageous delusion that makes his book an exercise in hideous bigotry rather than a rational analysis. The delusion is that he knows better than the Church what the "real reason" for her laws are. With a dismissive flick of his pompous wrist, he tosses aside the facts in order to inject a venomous lie. It appears that this angry little man and his publisher believe that the purpose of this holy Sacrament is to place power in the hands of the priest (and by extension of the Church):

Through the confessional Rome has been able to exercise an effective control not only over the family, but over political officials of every grade, teachers, doctors, lawyers, employers and employees, and indeed over all who submit to that discipline (p. 202).

Lies. Utter garbage. And it's not like this is a big secret. But Boettner is not concerned with the truth, or he would accept the explanations that the Church provides for what it teaches. These things are not done in a corner, and the truth is not hard to find. And simple courtesy - the courtesy of a gentleman - would demand that he charitably do so.

On page 191, Boettner says this about the Sacrament of Reconciliation:

The Word of God teaches that the sinner must truly repent from the heart for his sin. Otherwise there can be no forgiveness. But the Church of Rome to a considerable degree substitutes penance for Gospel repentance. Penance consists of outward acts, such as repeating certain prayers many times, e.g., the Hail Mary or the rosary, self-inflicted punishments, fastings, pilgrimages, etc. Penance represents a false hope, for it relates only to outward acts. True repentance involves a genuine sorrow for sin, it is directed toward God, and the person voluntarily shows by his outward acts and conduct that he has forsaken his sin.

Here's the problem: This totally misrepresents what the Catholic Church teaches.

Among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again" (CCC 1451; emphasis added).

There is no forgiveness without repentance. Period. This is a condition of receiving the sacrament rightly. The priest assumes that it is present, and he only intends to pronounce the absolution for those who truly are penitent. This is why the Church emphasizes that God alone forgives sins (CCC 1441). In fact, half the purpose of penance is to demonstrate that we are truly sorry for our sins - just like Zaccheus:

"Behold, Lord, I give one-half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold." Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, since he, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost" (Luke 19:8-10).

What was Zaccheus doing if not a work of penance? What was he doing if not demonstrating his genuine repentance by his actions? And this is precisely the attitude that the Catholic Church rightly says that we must bring to the confessional. In short, then, Boettner is just lying when he says that the Church downplays genuine repentance. We may be charitable and presume that he was simply ignorant when he first wrote this, but he lived for 28 years after the book was published. It went through five editions and 27 printings in his lifetime. Both he and P&R had ample opportunity to learn the truth, thanks to Catholic objections to the lies in the book. But garbage like this - pretending that the Church denies the importance of genuine repentance - is still there.

Comments on Boettner Will Be Few After All

I first intended to deal with every error about the Church that appears in the book. But that prospect, conceived before I had read very far in it, became far too daunting to pursue upon discovering the number and extent of the errors. I just don't have the time or the inclination to deal with that.

So then I thought that I would deal with representative errors from each chapter in the book. But after starting work on a post related to his second chapter, I found it nearly impossible to pick and choose between the errors, and it was really irritating to even bother with it. Life is too short to wallow in an irritant longer than necessary, so I have scrapped that plan as well. Hey, I'm not an apologist, so I don't feel any particular burden to deal with this book longer than necessary. My particular interest would be more along the lines of teaching rather than apologetics, anyway.

That statement might seem bizarre given the number of posts I have labeled as "apologetics" here on the blog, but it's true nonetheless. I am neither qualified nor called to be an apologist, except perhaps incidentally - insofar as it is a duty of every Christian to defend his beliefs.

Instead, my Plan C will be to post from the book if something catches my eye that simply can't be borne in silence. That might be a few posts, or it might be none at all. At any rate - whether I post or not - I intend to continue wading through the book. I read Salmon before converting, and was totally disappointed with the complete absence of scholarly detachment to be found there (to say nothing of the errors and misrepresentations); so far, this book is even more disappointing in its rhetoric and in its own errors and misrepresentations. Boettner had a reputation as an author which I so far find to be quite unwarranted.

Boettner: Anti-Catholic Bigot

There's really no other way to describe the man responsible for what I've read so far in Roman Catholicism. I don't know why, but I had this silly hope that perhaps the book might be characterized by scholarly detachment. Ha! Nothing could be further from the truth (and, so far, this book could not be further from the truth, either).

Here are some choice examples.

One of the first and most important results of the Reformation was that the Bible was given to the people in their own languages. Previously the Bible had been kept from them, on the pretext that only the church speaking through the priest could interpret it correctly (p. 2).

A conveniently self-serving distortion. Setting aside the fact that a wide variety of translations were made prior to the Reformation, literacy was far from widespread, and there was comparatively little demand for literacy either (thanks to the high cost of producing copies of books). The Reformation had the benefit of the arrival of Gutenberg's printing press, but previous generations did not. It is ridiculous to claim that "the Bible had been kept from them." Secondly, it would seem that there was genuine wisdom in the Church's concern about just anyone producing copies of the Bible - as the errors of the Reformers amply testify.

Our American freedoms are being threatened today by two totalitarian systems, Communism and Roman Catholicism. And of the two in our country Romanism is growing faster than is Communism and is the more dangerous...(p. 3)

Uhh...yeah. So the Catholic Church is worse than the Communists. Obviously Boettner never met anyone who was a victim of Marxism. This is so ignorant as to barely be worthy of comment. Perhaps he read The Gulag Archipelago before he died, and so was enlightened as to the errors here. Let's hope so.

Here's a gem of real scholarly value:

The present writer is in receipt of a letter from a missionary in Bolivia who writes: 'The Roman Catholic Church in Bolivia is not a Christian church at all but an unholy device for keeping the people in ignorance and poverty.' He added that Romanism the world over is one unified system, all under the control of the pope in Rome, and that it probably would be as bad in the United States if it were not for the restraining influence of the evangelical churches (p. 13f).

Ah, yes. We are expected to believe that an unnamed missionary is such an authority that he can tell us Profound Things about the Bolivian Church, and we ought to believe them because he is an Expert. And we don't need to know his name; we should just take Boettner's word for the whole thing. Unfortunately I'm reminded here of a certain scene:

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

But as to the [cough] substance of the report that Boettner reports: I don't know what the conditions were like in Bolivia in the early 1960s, and I sure as heck am not going to take this guy's word for anything. But even if they were bad: well, the Church has never denied that evil has been done by people in authority in every institution - including, unfortunately, the Church. Including, unfortunately, Protestant groups, too. And as for the "...unified system, all under the control of the Pope..." well...it's crassly put, but still worthy of a "Duh!" The Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic: hence the unity. And this unity is characterized by faithful communion with the Pope.

I'm reading this so as to familiarize myself with what Boettner has to say. My intent was to post on at least some of the points in the book, but if it's all as bad as this, I might not be able to bring myself to do it.

Combox Interaction With Carrie on Redemptoris Missio - 4

Based on this comment here.
Carrie asked, instead of answering the question:

What does the Bible say?

I'm asking what you say, Carrie. Do babies and the mentally handicapped go to hell or not when they die?

I've answered your questions, and I've answered some of them repeatedly. I think it's fair to expect you to answer this one in return.

Combox Interaction With Carrie on Redemptoris Missio - 3

Based upon a comment here:
Carrie said:

I don't see how Redemptoris missio deals with infants and the mentally-challenged so I am unclear why this is an issue for you.

As I hope will be clear by now, the case of infants and the mentally handicapped demonstrates that there are at least two classes of people who are unable to make a Protestant profession of faith.

Unless she is going to say (and I hope that she would not, most sincerely) that they are all going to hell, then there are at least two classes of people where she and I agree that God saves them - whether some of them or all of them makes no difference at this point - through Christ, apart from the normal means (we of course differ on the "normal means," but that is not relevant at the moment).

That being the case, it hardly seems objectionable to suppose that there are people of a third class whom God might also save through Christ and apart from the normal means: namely, those who through no fault of their own have never had the opportunity even to hear of Jesus Christ.

This is what the Pope asserts in brief in RM: that there are such people. But (as he makes perfectly clear throughout the (rather long) encyclical) this in no way changes the fact that the Church must proclaim salvation through Christ, and offer it through the ordinary means. The obvious implication is that it would be a fool's errand to place one's hope for salvation in something apart from the ordinary means that God has provided.

Combox Interaction with Carrie on Redemptoris Misso - 2

Based upon this post here.

Carrie said:

And, based on the partial answer you did give, please tell me how I am "poisoning the well".

In the post in question, she presented a quotation - ripped from context, with no explanation - that will mislead the uninformed as to what the Catholic Church believes.

Because she did not present an argument that shows why she thinks the quotation contains an error, it is obvious that she is not attempting to educate the uninformed (presumably the uninformed are her audience, based upon this post). That being the case, it seems quite clear that the post is nothing but a rhetorical swipe at the Church.

That being the case, it seems quite clear that the purpose behind the post is to make the Catholic Church look bad, so that actual arguments in its defense will be ignored.

This is called "poisoning the well." If she doesn't understand what that is, she should look here.

If, however, I have mistaken her intent, she has no one to blame for this except herself since (as is quite unfortunately common) she hasn't stated what her intent in the post was. In fact, when she has been challenged to explain what her point for a post was in the past, she has steadfastly refused to do so in almost every case. I think that she can hardly blame her readers for misunderstanding her (if they have in fact done so), given her apparent reticence to make herself clear.

Combox Interaction With Carrie on Redemptoris Missio - 1

Based on this comment here.

Carrie quoted me saying Of course not everyone who dies without having made a Protestant profession of faith goes to hell.

She responded to that: That is not what I asked - you're still dodging.

Perhaps she needs to restate what she thinks she asked, because what she asked was this:

will all who die without personally accepting Christ as Lord and Saviour go to hell?

"Personally accepting Christ as Lord and Savior" is a textbook definition of what I called making a "Protestant profession of faith."

If she cares to either rephrase the question if I misunderstood her, or explain how that is not a "Protestant profession of faith," by all means she should do so. In either case, I didn't dodge her question - not the first time she falsely claimed this (see below), nor especially the second time.

The first time she mistakenly claimed that I "dodged" her question, I answered it with a question whose obvious answer - even from a Protestant viewpoint - makes her original question (in red and bold above in this post) look ridiculous. I know of no Protestant group which claims that every baby goes to hell, and Catholics don't think that any do. Babies obviously don't have the opportunity to "personally accept Christ as their Lord and Savior," not all of them (according to all Protestants of which I'm aware) or none of them (according to Catholics and, probably, at least some Protestants) go to hell, and therefore the obvious answer to her question is No.

Now, if she still thinks I'm dodging her question, she is going to have to be more specific in what she is asking...and also explain why she thinks my responses have dodged it.

The excuse does not excuse

Carrie responds.

Relax - it's just a quote. The link to the full document is there for everyone to read for themselves in context.

Then of course Carrie might have selected a quotation from Redemptoris Missio (RM) like this, if one quotation is just as good as another:

No one, therefore, can enter into communion with God except through Christ, by the working of the Holy Spirit (RM 5).

That quotation is far truer to the spirit of the encyclical as a whole, whose goal is:

The present document has as its goal an interior renewal of faith and Christian life. For missionary activity renews the Church, revitalizes faith and Christian identity, and offers fresh enthusiasm and new incentive. Faith is strengthened when it is given to others! It is in commitment to the Church's universal mission that the new evangelization of Christian peoples will find inspiration and support (RM 2; emphasis in original).

So when Carrie posts a quotation that the average uninformed Protestant will certainly understand as universalistic, is it really "just a quote"? Hogwash.

Carrie follows with a quotation of CCC 847, the significant portion of which is:

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

Once again: a quotation ripped from context. Because 848 says:

Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men (emphasis added).

Note what it says: God can lead them "to that faith without which it is impossible to please him" in ways known to himself. The means doesn't change: it is still through Christ, as RM affirms, and it requires faith "without which it is impossible to please him."

This is completely non-controversial from the Catholic perspective, since "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments" (CCC 1257).

But of course, to the Protestant, with an erroneous notion of the sacrament of Baptism, that seems wrong (though it isn't). And Carrie is among them, since she says one must have a "direct/personal faith in Christ" in order to be saved. But the problem with that is evident, as we shall see in addressing her question:

Or maybe the easier question is - will all who die without personally accepting Christ as Lord and Saviour go to hell?

Of course not. But neither will they all go to heaven, either. The obvious question remains to be answered by her: Will babies who die go to hell? How about the mentally handicapped who are incapable of understanding the gospel? If she says "No, they won't all go to hell," then she has answered her own question the same way: Not all who die without having made the Protestant expression of faith will go to hell. But if that's the case, then even from the Protestant perspective it would have to be conceded that God is free to use extraordinary means for the salvation of people if he chooses to do so - though of course their salvation would still be accomplished through Christ.

On the other hand, If she says that all these will go to hell - well, that's a pretty frightening picture, and it is certainly not a Catholic one.

kmerian gets no answer

A couple of days ago, kmerian responded to a post over at Carrie's blog:

Carrie, what is your point with these posts? Is it your contention that the Bible is very easy to understand?

I started to respond over there, but recovered my resolve to avoid posting there. Here's my reply, kmerian; I hope it helps.

kmerian,

I see it has been two days, and unsurprisingly you have no answer to your question.

I suggest that when Carrie neglects to specify her point, we must take our cue from one of the first posts on her blog, where she wrote:

First, I want to educate other Protestants on Roman Catholicism as I believe it is important to understand that the gospel of Rome is not the Gospel of Christ. This involves not only looking at what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, but also refuting the erroneous claims by Catholic e-pologists.

Hence, I suppose we are to understand posts like this as an attempt to "educate Protestants."

But it seems to me that there is a problem with this supposition when it comes to posts like this one. That is, I don't see how it can be construed as being particularly "educational." It's more of a scare quote, devoid of explanation or context, so that it appears to have more the intention of making the Catholic Church look bad in the eyes of Protestants who perhaps don't share Carrie's apparent hatred of the Catholic Church.

Why do I say that? Because Carrie has enough sense to know that if she wants others to understand what the Catholic Church teaches, she ought to be quoting from the Catechism, and from councils, and from encyclicals. If she really wants to "educate" Protestants as to what we believe, she ought to be drawing from magisterial sources.

I strongly suspect that her purpose in doing this is precisely for the scare value. The Catechism isn't, I suppose, sufficiently controversial in terms of its expression of doctrine.

Why would that matter? Because if she simply presents what the Church teaches - from official sources - she will be obliged to explain why it's wrong (if she can), and she will be obliged to defend herself when we correct her with additional explication from the same sources.

This being the case - that she apparently prefers to go for shock value rather than for substance - I can only conclude that she is not truly interested in educating anybody, but rather in propagandizing them so as to persuade them to hate the Catholic Church as she apparently does. Consequently I believe that these posts may be categorized as nothing more than attempts to poison the well, and to the extent that I'm correct they do not constitute an argument, and they are not genuinely educational. I'm standing by this thesis until or unless she satisfactorily demonstrates that I'm wrong.