Protestants as Christians?

Very recently, I was engaged in a discussion on the distinction between formal and material heresy which became involved with the question of whether or not modern day Protestants are material or formal heretics, as to whether or not they were to be truly designated as "Christian" or part of the Church by virtue of their baptism.

St. Thomas Aquinas, speaking of heresy, said: "Now, in matters of faith, the will assents to some truth, as to its proper good, as was shown above (4, 3): wherefore that which is the chief truth, has the character of last end, while those which are secondary truths, have the character of being directed to the end.
Now, whoever believes, assents to someone's words; so that, in every form of unbelief, the person to whose words assent is given seems to hold the chief place and to be the end as it were; while the things by holding which one assents to that person hold a secondary place. Consequently he that holds the Christian faith aright, assents, by his will, to Christ, in those things which truly belong to His doctrine." [1]

St. Thomas begins by defining that heresy and faith are acts of the will, when it [the will] assents to an article of the faith [the assent of the will to the doctrine of Christ, i.e. faith], de fide [of the faith, and article of or pertaining to the doctrine of the Christian religion], or fails to do so [heresy: the failure to willingly assent to one or more articles of the faith of the Christian religion, here a distinction can be made, of the first, what is being treated upon, is willful failure to assent to the truths of religion, "Formal" or "manifest" Heresy, the second, the unconcious failure to do so, termed "Material Heresy"].

St. Thomas goes on to make this distinction: "Accordingly there are two ways in which a man may deviate from the rectitude of the Christian faith. First, because he is unwilling to assent to Christ [formal and willful heresy]: and such a man has an evil will [what we today term as "bad will"], so to say, in respect of the very end. This belongs to the species of unbelief in pagans and Jews [therefore a kind of unbelief which is mortal and severs Christian communion by the failure to assent to its communion]. Secondly, because, though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents to Christ, because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind.
Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas." [- The Definition of heresy] ... As Augustine says (Ep. xliii) and we find it stated in the Decretals (xxiv, qu. 3, can. Dixit Apostolus): "By no means should we accuse of heresy those who, however false and perverse their opinion may be, defend it without obstinate fervor, and seek the truth with careful anxiety, ready to mend their opinion, when they have found the truth," because, to wit, they do not make a choice in contradiction to the doctrine of the Church. Accordingly, certain doctors seem to have differed either in matters the holding of which in this or that way is of no consequence, so far as faith is concerned, or even in matters of faith, which were not as yet defined by the Church; although if anyone were obstinately to deny them after they had been defined by the authority of the universal Church, he would be deemed a heretic. This authority resides chiefly in the Sovereign Pontiff."[2]

Now, our discussion went somewhat like this:

My opponent cited Vatican II in referencing his belief that Protestants in current times could not be considered formal heretics, and thus outside the Church, whereas I argued that modern day Protestants do fit this definition and thus are formal heretics, separated from the Church, the Church of Christ, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church.

Vatican II: "For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."[3]

And Josef Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, continues in this belief:

“Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.” [4]

Now, I'll get into this statement later (See this post), but it serves well enough to establish the objection which the opposition positioned.

My argument went somewhat like this:

The Catholic Church is one Church of the faithful, not of heretics; heretics are outside the Church:

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30: “Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church..."

That all members of the Church must obey the Holy See:

Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943: "Therefore they are in dangerous error who think that they can attach themselves to Christ the Head of the Church, without adhering faithfully to his Vicar on earth."

Heretics do not profess properly and truthfully all that the Church has taught in every last detail, word and intention.

I Lateran Council: "If ANYONE does not profess properly and truthfully all that has been handed down and taught publicly to the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God, to the last detail in word and intention: let him be anathema."

Heretics are not members of the Catholic Church.

St. Cyprian: "He is no Christian who is not in Christ's Church." (Epistle to Antonianus," 52)

St. Augustine - If anyone holds to a single heresy, he is not a Catholic. ("On Heresies," no.88; PL 42)

St. Peter Canisius: "Who is to be called a Christian? He who confesses the doctrine of Christ and His Church. " (St. Canisius Catholic Cate-chism, Dillingen, 1560, Question no. 1)

Fr. Michael Müller, C.SS.R., "The Catholic Dogma," 1888: "What Protestant Belief In Christ is - .(Protestants) never had any divine faith in Christ. 'He who does not believe all that Christ has taught,' says St. Ambrose, 'denies Christ himself.' (In Luc. c. 9.) 'It is absurd for a heretic,' says St. Thomas Aquinas, 'to assert that he believes in Jesus Christ. To believe in a man is to give our full assent to his word and to all he teaches. True faith, therefore, is absolute belief in Jesus Christ and in all he has taught. Hence he who does not adhere to all that Jesus Christ has prescribed for our salvation has no more the doc-trine of Jesus Christ and of his Church, than the Pagans, Jews and Turk's have.' 'He is' says Jesus Christ, 'a heathen and publican.'"

Tertullian: "...Heretics, however, have no fellowship in our discipline, whom the mere fact of their excommunication testifies to be outsiders. I am not bound to recognize in them a thing which is enjoined on me, because they and we have not the same God, nor one—that is, the same—Christ."

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of Doctrine proposed by Her authoritative Magisterium.”

That the view of Vatican II and Josef Ratzinger is a novelty.

Pius IX, Letter from the Holy Office, September 16, 1864: "It [this novelty] can be summed up in this proposition, that the true Church Jesus Christ is made up of one part Roman Church, established and propagated throughout the world, and one part the schism of Photius, and the Anglican heresy, both of which have, with the Church of Rome, one same Lord, one same faith, one same baptism."

Leo XIII, Officio sanctissimo, December 22, 1887: "But he who in his manner of thinking and acting would separate himself from his shepherd and from his Sovereign Pastor, the Roman Pontiff, has no further bond with Christ: “He that heareth you, heareth me, he that despiseth you, despiseth me” (Luke X: 16). Whoever is estranged from Christ does not reap; he scatters."

Schismatic and heretical sects, then, do not communicate in the unity of the Church, are not in the Church, because they hold to false doctrine and are not in union with Rome. They are not “united to the Catholic Church by very close bonds.”

Therefore schismatic sects and heretical sects have no further bond with Christ. They are not in “partial communion” with the Catholic Church, and which are part of the Church of Christ. In fact, they scatter against Christ in their activities.

Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943: "Consequently, as in the real assembly of the faithful there can be only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith: and he who refuses to hear the Church must be considered, by the order of the Lord, as a heathen and a publican. And they who are divided by reasons of faith or of government cannot live in this one Body, and in its one Divine Spirit."

The opposition returned that Protestants were not removed from the Church by virtue of the notion that they were merely material heretics and thus did not fall under the sentence of excommunication imposed by the Apostolic See.

... As Augustine says (Ep. xliii) and we find it stated in the Decretals (xxiv, qu. 3, can. Dixit Apostolus): "By no means should we accuse of heresy those who, however false and perverse their opinion may be, defend it without obstinate fervor, and seek the truth with careful anxiety, ready to mend their opinion, when they have found the truth," because, to wit, they do not make a choice in contradiction to the doctrine of the Church. Accordingly, certain doctors seem to have differed either in matters the holding of which in this or that way is of no consequence, so far as faith is concerned, or even in matters of faith, which were not as yet defined by the Church; although if anyone were obstinately to deny them after they had been defined by the authority of the universal Church, he would be deemed a heretic. This authority resides chiefly in the Sovereign Pontiff."

I proceeded to point out the fact that most Protestants obstinately defend their error and seek to undermine, distort, ignore, or attack the truth of the Catholic religion rather than seek the truth about it with a willingness to mend their opinion, and thus fall under the category which Aquinas lays forth:

"...because he is unwilling to assent to Christ [formal and willful heresy]: and such a man has an evil will [what we today term as "bad will"], so to say, in respect of the very end. This belongs to the species of unbelief in pagans and Jews [therefore a kind of unbelief which is mortal and severs Christian communion by the failure to assent to its communion]. Secondly, because, though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents to Christ, because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind. Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas."

The opposition simply denied this:

I simply deny that most Protestants "refuse" to be informed. ...they just are not opposed to learning the truth, no matter what you may think about it.

But then goes on to contradict himself, agreeing with me in an attempt to disagree with me:

...because of their errors, they do not believe that the Catholic Church has something to say to them about their salvation. And from their perspective, based in sola scriptura, there is no reason for them even to suspect that the Church has something to say to them that they need to hear. If they argue with you on the Internet and refuse to listen to what you say, it's not because they are not interested in the truth. It's because they think that they already have it, and that you are going to be contradicting it, and consequently they see no reason to listen to you. I think that they are mistaken of course, but that's not the point. They don't.

If their refusal to assent to the truth does not constitute obstinacy, then what does? This person says that no matter what, no one who believes that they are right can be truly called a heretic, which means that there is no such thing, for we are all excused of it [heresy] if we believe that we are right (See Also) [which is error, for all heretics think they are right, that's why there are heretics, yet who does not know that those heretics in the past have been condemned as such, and excommunicated, and expelled from the Church either by solemn declaration or by process of Divine or ecclesiastical law?]. It is that they trust not God and His truth, but themselves.

"though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents to Christ, because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind. " - Aquinas on Heresy

"But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme (truth and the formal motive of faith. "In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them" (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not "bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. "You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel" (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3). [5]

Thus, for this reason, modern day Protestants, who reject Catholic truth and refuse to assent to it, can truly be called heretics and thus not Christian nor members of the Catholic Church (See also).

But this is not the only leg which my argument stood on. The second pin was that Protestants were not Christian and were outside the Church because they were divided from the Church in both faith and government, that not only were Protestants heretics, but even if the heresy were cut from the equation, they would still be schismatics in one sense in that they reject the authority of the Roman Pontiff, involving heresy, and refuse communion with him.

Schism: Schismatics, says St. Thomas, in the strict sense, are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church consists in the connection of its members with each other and of all the members with the head. Now this head is Christ whose representative in the Church is the supreme pontiff. And therefore the name of schismatics is given to those who will not submit to the supreme pontiff nor communicate with the members of the Church subject to him. Since the definition of Papal Infallibility, schism usually implies the heresy of denying this dogma. [6]

Pius IX, Letter from the Holy Office, September 16, 1864: “they are separated from the communion of the Church who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See.”

According to Pope Pius IX and the teaching of the Church those who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See are not in communion with the Church. They are cut off, severed, excommunicated for being schismatics by operation of Divine Law. Therefore, for this reason Protestants are not fellow Christians or members of Christ's Church, which is the Catholic Church. Therefore, those PRotestants who were baptized, thus made members of the Catholic Church, are separated from the Catholic Church by refusing to acknowledge and accept the authority and power of the Apostolic See.

Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928: "No one is in the Church of Christ, and no one remains in it, unless he acknowledges and accepts with obedience the authority and power of Peter and his legitimate successors."

Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943: "Therefore they are in dangerous error who think that they can attach themselves to Christ the Head of the Church, without adhering faithfully to his Vicar on earth."

Now, so far we've covered the fact that Protestants are severed from the Church by
1. Refusal to assent to the truth, constituting obstinate heresy.
2. Refusal to acknowledge the authority and primacy of the Apostolic See.

However, there is still one more reason why modern day Protestants are separated from the true Church of Christ, a second kind of Schism, that of refusing communion with other Christians, which Protestants do every day.

Schismatics... are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church consists in the connection of its members with each other and of all the members... therefore the name of schismatics is given to those who will not... communicate with the members of the Church subject to him [the Roman Pontiff]. [7]

Therefore, Protestants are severed from the Catholic Church in a three-fold manner, Schism from the Apostolic See, Schism with other Christians, and obstinate heresy, then there can be no doubt that modern day Protestants are indeed not Christians and are separated from the Church, falling under the sentence of excommunication, and/or anathema.

St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

"...can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? - without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is "that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived" (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3). If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral delinquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. ...But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. "In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them" (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not "bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. "You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel" (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3).

"For this reason, as the unity of the faith is of necessity required for the unity of the church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involves unity of communion, is necessary jure divino. "The unity of the Church is manifested in the mutual connection or communication of its members, and likewise in the relation of all the members of the Church to one head" (St. Thomas, 2a 2ae, 9, xxxix., a. I). From this it is easy to see that men can fall away from the unity of the Church by schism, as well as by heresy. "We think that this difference exists between heresy and schism" (writes St. Jerome): "heresy has no perfect dogmatic teaching, whereas schism, through some Episcopal dissent, also separates from the Church" (S. Hieronymus, Comment. in Epist. ad Titum, cap. iii., v. 1011). In which judgment St. John Chrysostom concurs: "I say and protest (he writes) that it is as wrong to divide the Church as to fall into heresy" (Hom. xi., in Epist. ad Ephes., n. 5)

Hence the teaching of Cyprian, that heresy and schism arise and are begotten from the fact that due obedience is refused to the supreme authority. "Heresies and schisms have no other origin than that obedience is refused to the priest of God, and that men lose sight of the fact that there is one judge in the place of Christ in this world" (Epist. xii. ad Cornelium, n. 5). - Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #9, June 29, 1896.

______________
Endnotes:

[1] Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae Partis Q. 11, A. 1
[2] Ibid.
[3] Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio, Decree on Ecumenism, # 3
[4] The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88
[5] Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #9, June 29, 1896.
[6] Catholic Encyclopedia, Article "Heresy", sec. II, Vol. VII. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company, - Newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm
[7] Ibid.

St. Martin and the Catechumen

Martin restores a Catechumen to Life.

"...At this time a certain catechumen joined him, being desirous of becoming instructed in the doctrines: and habits of the most holy man. But, after the lapse only of a few days, the catechumen, seized with a languor, began to suffer from a violent fever. It so happened that Martin had then left home, and having remained away three days, he found on his return that life had departed from the catechumen; and so suddenly had death occurred, that he had left this world without receiving baptism. The body being laid out in public was being honored by the last sad offices on the part of the mourning brethren, when Martin hurries up to them with tears and lamentations. But then laying hold; as it were, of the Holy Spirit, with the whole powers of his mind, he orders the others to quit the cell in which the body was lying; and bolting the door, he stretches himself at full length on the dead limbs of the departed brother. Having given himself for some time to earnest prayer, and perceiving by means of the Spirit of God that power was present, he then rose up for a little, and gazing on the countenance of the deceased, he waited without misgiving for the result of his prayer and of the mercy of the Lord. And scarcely had the space of two hours elapsed, when he saw the dead man begin to move a little in all his members, and to tremble with his eyes opened for the practice of sight. Then indeed, turning to the Lord with a loud voice and giving thanks, he filled the cell with his ejaculations. Hearing the noise, those who had been standing at the door immediately rush inside. And truly a marvelous spectacle met them, for they beheld the man alive whom they had formerly left dead. Thus being restored to life, and having immediately obtained baptism, he lived for many years afterwards; and he was the first who offered himself to us both as a subject that had experienced the virtues of Martin, and as a witness to their existence. The same man was wont to relate that, when he left the body, he was brought before the tribunal of the Judge, and being assigned to gloomy regions and vulgar crowds, he received a severe sentence. Then, however, he added, it was suggested by two angels of the Judge that he was the man for whom Martin was praying ; and that, on this account, he was ordered to be led back by the same angels, and given up to Martin, and restored to his former life. From this time forward, the name of the sainted man became illustrious, so that, as being reckoned holy by all, he was also deemed powerful and truly apostolical."

- St. Suplitius Serverus, The Life of St. Martin D'Tours

Catholic Dogma and Relativity

Is the truth relative to each man's outlook on the world? Does one truth vary depending on who you ask? Ask your average protestant about a truth of scripture and they will demean your proposed verse as simply your interpretation, making what the Bible says a matter of relativity. In such a case, the Bible could endorse killing and other such things depending on who you ask, thus, can it be so that the doctrine of Christ is actually relevant to the perception of the individual?

Take John 3:5 for example, there are many different ways that it can be taken, but is what this verse is saying relative depending on who you ask? Does not this verse actually say that unless one is born again of water and the Holy Ghost one cannot enter heaven, or is that just an individual interpretation of what that verse really says? Well, in the modern Protestant world, we can see that what this verse really says is, relative to the Protestant that one asks, for one it means, that we are cleansed of our sins and are made a Christian, for another it merely symbolizes this, thus, which one of these is the universal truth, which how can one correctly understand this statement of truth uttered by God Himself? Is there really a truth out there that can be seen and heard by the individual?

To clarify: there are some truths, like, my car is in my garage, it is true now, but after I take it somewhere it is not true that it is in the garage, thus, this is a truth that is relevant to the actions of an individual, that somethings that are true now, might not necessarily be true tomorrow. This is a transitory truth, it is something that is temporarily true, or true under certain circumstances, but not necessarily universally true. Our question is, is this kind of philosophy applicable to all things, including religion? There are some, especially modern philosophers, who will say "yes, your truth is your truth, but it is not mine, I have a different truth than you." Indeed, I do have a different truth than these pseudo philosophers, for in the world that I live in, there are some truths are always true, that cannot cease to be true because I am different, and have different experiences than someone else, for me 2+2 always equals four, no matter how many times one, nor no matter who, adds it up; it is a universal truth, it is a persistent truth, one that is not limited to any individual interpretation. The fact is that it is impossible for truth to be relative, or varying from person to person. If it's truth, then it is truth for all, not just some. But actual belief in the Truth does indeed vary from person to person, it is our understanding of certain truths that can vary between different persons, yet the truth still remains the same, it endures. That two and two is four is a universal truth. It has always been true whether humanity has known it to be or not; and will always be true. The notion that, just because its true for you doesn't mean its true for me is logically impossible. If it's true Truth, then it will be true for all. It can't change because it is an enduring truth, it is something that is not relative to one's understanding of mathematics. In another manner, water always boils at a set temperature, it is true for all persons, and so, no matter who boils the water, it will always boil at the same temperature as it would for anyone else, these are some of the the persistent truths that make the world work. These kinds of truths that we live by everyday, and are applicable to all under all circumstances, are the truths that endure, truths that are always true, and are true for everyone at every time, a persistent truth. That two and two are four, and the temperature at which water boils are these kinds of truths upon which one can trust to solve an equation and to boil a pot of stew.

But what of religion, is religion transitory or persistent truth. Ask Your local Protestant pastor and he may tell you in so many words that it is the first, and then later on tell you flat out that it is actually the latter, but not until he has already proven to you why it is the first; he is a relativist, his understanding of a book, he elevates to be an enduring truth, even though he will admit that his understanding of this "enduring truth" is actually relative to the understanding of the individual, in other words, Baptism might be necessary for all for salvation at all times, this the Protestant might concede, but then, will tell you that someone can have a completely different understanding of that which completely redefines it to mean something completely different, making what he said was eternal enduring truth relative to how one wants to see that particular issue, making in fact transitory, or relative, and not enduring nor universal. The Protestant will do the latter because of his belief in private interpretation of the work from which the rule of baptism is drawn, he must submit his own understanding, and the text itself, to the rule that he and others accept as truth, but then relative, that the truth of the Bible is relative to the judgment and understanding of the individual, he will submit this truth of this work to that rule, because that rule is the reason why he has no magisterium to follow, why he rejects an enduring and persistent truth given by God Himself, which is not relative, and thus would not conform to the way he wants this truth to operate. He will say that the Bible is contained of persistent and enduring universal truths, and then say that they are all relative to how the individual wants them to be, thus, these "truths" of the Bible, such as of the necessity of Baptism, might be true for the pastor, but not for someone else in the congregation, or rather some other pastor, the truth of that verse of the Bible is relative, then in the eyes of the Protestant, because it is not actually an eternal truth, but relative and transitory.

Jesus Christ said "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My Words will not pass away", so, in essence, we have an assurance from the God-man Himself that the Christian religion that He founded is based on persistent and eternal truths, not transitory earthly truths, that pass away, and are relevant to certain circumstances. Quite simply, then, Protestantism is not contained of nor following, the words of Christ Jesus, because Protestants follow relative transitory truths, and not the objective universal truths of God. The nature of Christian dogma is that of an enduring eternal truth uttered by God. One can either build his religion or philosophy based on the sands of transitory things, or he can build his foundation on the rock of the persistent truths of the universe that always were and always will be. The Pastor, then, does not have in his own philosophy the enduring truth of Christian dogma.

This philosophy of relativity in religion is based on the fact of whether or not some one actually believes these truths is relative. By this it is meant that one person may believe that 2 + 2 = 4 and another may not; but either way, we know that the one that believes it to be true, is indeed correct in his belief, and the other is not. Applying this to religion, we come to the same conclusion. However, in religion, we don't have the same sense of understanding the truth. Well, what do I mean? Well, let me explain by using gravity as an example. Now, it is a universal truth that gravity exists, we all know this, it is an enduring "persistent" truth, but what about relativity? Gravity is always acting upon us, whether we like it or not. Now, suppose someone does not believe that gravity is true. Under the terms set forth by the relativist pseudo philosophers just because its true for you doesn't mean its true for someone else, thus, if the said person were to actually disbelieve in gravity, then gravity would have no effect upon him, because it is relative to whether or not this person accepts it as their truth. Now, were that person to go the tallest building they can find and jump from its heights, according to their belief system, since they don't believe in gravity, they won't fall to their instantaneous death. Obviously this is not so. If one were to jump from a high place, they would fall to their death because they are bound to the universal "persistent" truth of gravity, which is a persistent truth, applicable to all regardless of whether or not they believe it its reality; so much for relativity. Obviously, truth is not subject to the limited understanding of the individual, whether someone understands, or believes, a certain truth does not alter is truthfulness, does not lessen its effects in reality, truth is not subject to one's understanding of it.

Likewise, if the religion founded by Christ is such a universal and persistent truth then regardless of what all others believe, all will be held accountable to this truth, because, like gravity, it is applicable to all. The truths set forth by God apply to all men who are made subject to the laws of God, thus, they are responsible for knowledge and practice of these Truths. Such is the truth of John 3:5, as it says all men must be born again of water and the Holy Ghost to enter the Kingdom of heaven, it is a universal truth applicable to all men, who are all subject to this fact, this eternal Truth of God, all men are bound to observe and keep this observance, otherwise, the sentence is being barred the kingdom of Heaven, for the rejection, or failure to observe this Truth, is the failure to observe and obey the authority and Divinity of the God Who instituted it, it is to show disobedience to, or disregard for the the Divinity and authority of God.

Since we believe that Jesus Christ is God made man, then indeed, we should do as He commanded, and obey all things that He commands, thus, it is much more logical to follow this course of action, than the objective relativist view that God may not exist for someone else, and according only to one. Now, answering the Protestant relativity of truth. According to the 33,000 different Protestant sects, He [God] wants us to proclaim His only Son, Jesus Christ, as lord and savior, and all is fine, nothing more, nothing less; and even there there is no real agreement, since this only according to the relative interpretation of a book that can be obscure in one or more areas, thus they have no real agreement on the truth, what is objectively true, and what is actually false, they don't really have the concept of truth. Protestant proclaim this, and claim that it is eternal persistent truth, but then will submit that to the private judgement of the individual Protestant. This is the root of the relativist philosophy, for it is the concept that one persons' interpretation of the scriptures is as good another, thus, the whole relativist philosophy that is destroying Christianity now is actually drawn from the Lutheran and Zwinglian philosophy of private interpretation, made more abstract and obscure via sola scriptura. The only thing that unites them is their disdain and hatred for the Catholic Church.

Now, continuing with our previous line of thought concerning persistent truth, since there is a universal truth of God, we need to know which Truth is of God; the following quote from St. Alphonsus Liguori will serve our purpose in discerning which church contains the persistent truths about God:

"A church which is not one in its doctrine and faith can never be the True Church ... Hence, because truth must be one, of all the different churches ... only one can be the true one ... and out of that Church there is no salvation. Now, in order to determine which is this one true Church ... it is necessary to examine which is the Church first founded by Jesus Christ, for, when this is ascertained, it must be confessed that this one alone is the true Church which, having once been the true Church must always have been the true Church and must forever be the true Church. For to this first Church has been made the promise of the Savior that the gates of Hell would never be able to overturn it (Matthew 16:18) ... In the entire history of religion, we find that the Roman Catholic Church alone was the first Church, and that the other false and heretical churches afterwards departed and separated from her. This is the Church which was propagated by the Apostles and afterwards governed by pastors whom the Apostles themselves appointed to rule over her ... This character can be found only in the Roman Church, whose pastors descend securely by an uninterrupted and legitimate succession from the Apostles of the world (Matthew 28:20)"

Clearly, then, if indeed the Roman Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, then what it teaches is applicable to ALL, being universal and persistent truths, this Church being the one true Church then is true for all, and thus, since in it alone is salvation found, as a persistent truth, it is true for everyone, not just those who believe. The Truths of this Church are then universal and persistent truths applicable to all, this is the nature of Catholic Dogma.

Conspiracy Theory

We seem to always be hearing about conspiracy theories these days, that there is a conspiracy behind this, or there is a conspiracy behind that. A couple of months ago, I was at home with nothing to do, and found a movie titled "Signs", which was one of Mel Gibson's movies, and at one point there sitting on the coutch Gibson asks another character "is it possible that there are no coincidences?
Are there really no accidents, or do you believe that people just get lucky?" or words to that effect.
This is a significant point because so much hinges on whether or not there is a purpose behind many of the events that happen in our world. The point being that if we really believe in the supernatural, if we really believe that there is a God who created all things, and that there is a devil seeking the ruin of souls and the corruption of all things, can we really believe that anything is vain, or happens for no purpose? Is it possible that everything just happens for the sake of happening?

Alluding once again to popular culture, there comes to mind the series "The X-files" with two principle characters Fox Mulder and Dana Scully, where Mulder is always convinced that something behind the scenes is taking place, and is always contending with Skully's sckeptical outlook, that there really is a supernatural, but that Skully is always looking for some reason to explain the unexplainable. Strangely enough, if one took that sckeptical outlook and applied it to everything, one would eventually come to believe in a supernatural, that there is a reason for everything, rather, that if Skully took her skepticism far enough, that she would go full circle and end up with Mulder's unquestioning belief in the supernatural. If one believed that there is a reason for everything, that everything can be explained logically, that the most logical thing to do would be to form an logical explanation, and skully simply did not make it the other side of the circle sooner becaue she would not accept Mulder's explanation of the events, even though she herself could find no logical explanation, she defied her own logic in that she would not accept the logic that was present in Mulder's views, she was being illogical because she would not hear logic, if for the sole reason that she would have to admit error and concede to that which she refused to accept.

There is currently in the world two types of people: those who believe in a reason for everything, and those who believe that everything is chaotic and serves no purpose.
There are those who believe in a God, or gods, who believe that that divine entity, and/or entities, created all of that which surrounds us. Then there is he who believes in no God, or any entity, and that everything just naturally comes together as it has and will continue in that fashion.
Those who believe in a God, who has a purpose for this creation, must believe in a conspiracy, a scheme for all of creation, that there is a reason for all of the things that occur in this world.
Here we will focus on the one who believes in God and a reason for all that has happened.

The most common belief of a creator that we are bound to run into in this age in the USA is that of Christianity. In Christianity we believe that there is an omnipotent God who created all things, and that this God also created beings called angels. They believe that a certain one of these desired to be like the Creator, and thus led some of these beings against the Creator.
Christians call this being the devil, and those mutinous angels demons, thus illustrating two opposing forces - those of the Creator [God from here on] and those of the devil. Those who believe in Christianity and the existence of this devil believe in a conspiracy, and they must or cease to be a Christian for the sole purpose that they would not longer fit the definition of such, that this devil conspired against God and His designs.

Presently there are many conspiracy theories, and most of them are pretty far-fetched, compiled by curious minds who inquire into certain events and conclude that such events occurred because someone willed that events should happen in that manner - a conspiracy theory, it's wacky because they attempt like Skully to insert their own opinions and logic into the theory to help it make sense, but then, only to themselves, thus, the larger number of them are senseless to the majority of mankind, and are probably not true for the reason that there are better explanations, and ones that better be labelled a theory because it can be tested, otherwise, it could only be called a "conspiracy hypothesis", because it is only a theory when it can be tested, and also usually requires a precedent, that the thing in question actually has happened before, helps to substantiate a theory, and can thus provide a basis for such a theory, because since history repeats itself, could happen again, or rather, could be happening again. But mainly, one must try to stick with the one that is most credible, or that really can be tested, and when fully considered leads back to the source of all things, if it is good, as all truth must, and that is God, otherwise, if it is erroneous, one can be almost certain that it proceeds from another, more ominous entity.

God created Man, and placed him in a place of Paradise with Himself, and gave man free will.
In this paradise, at some point, the devil appeared and tempted man to disobey God, it was a conspiracy, the devil told man that God had lied, and that man would not die if he disobeyed God, and that there was a conspiracy against him to take away his liberties, to restrict him. In fact it was the other way around, it was the devil who was conspiring against God, using man, His creation, as one of his tools for such. For man's disobedience God cast man from this paradise and into the world that we know now. Thus any Christian who believes in the above, as many do, and also in the devil must believe in a conspiracy theory since it necessarily follows that all events happen because one of the two above described forces are in some way or another involved in the unfolding of events in this world.

God loved his creation, and desired to redeem man from his fate, and sent His Son [Christ from now on] as a redeemer to redeem man from the dominion of the devil. Christ died for the salvation and redemption of man from the devil and his realm, and founded a Church through which all men could now come to obtain the benefits of this redemption. The devil continued in his mutiny against God and His Church. so now we still have conspiracies, the conspiracy of the devil to use all of his means against the Church of Christ [see the St. Michael Prayer].

There are certain societies and groups who have assaulted, and continue to assault, this Church, most notably the Freemasons. It is believed that there was a freemasonic conspiracy to subvert the Church from within, and during the reign of Leo XIII it became known that some of these Freemasons had worked their way all the way to the top of its hierarchy. On October 9, 1958, Pope Pius XII died, and soon a conclave began that would decide the identity of the next Pontiff. This is the crux of this conspiracy, that these masons who had worked their way to the top of the hierarchy would work to place one of their men on the Apostolic See, who would then work to destroy the Church from within. A few days later an event happened that remains controversial, but that it was announced that a Pope had been chosen by the conclave, and then that they were unsure, and then again the announcement that a Cardinal had been chosen, and then again uncertainty as the color of smoke changed again.
Finally, not long after that, a man walked out onto the balcony attired as a Pope who took the title of John XXIII. The conspiracy was that a man had been chosen Pope who was not Roncalli, and was forced to abdicate, and that another Cardinal, Cardinal Siri, had been elected instead of Roncalli.

Roncalli [John XXIII] convoked an ecumenical Council which opened in 1962, and this council worked many changes in the Church, including the sacraments, the interpretation of dogma, a complete overhaul of everything was committed by this council. The conspiracy was that Siri and the Council were part of a Freemasonic plot against the Church, to destroy it from within, and that John XXIII, and his successors were not valid Popes of the Catholic Church, but anti-Popes elected in an uncanonical fashion. During the implementation of these changes by the Council, certain men in the curia saw the contradictions with traditional Catholic doctrine, and drew up a critical study of the new liturgy invented by the council, that study was called the Ottaviani Intervention, named after the principle signer Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani.
This is questioned and dismissed by the majority of people nowadays because it is what it is - a Conspiracy Theory. But the point is that it is questioned by those who believe, those who believe in a God and in a devil, but it seems ludicrous to them because it is a conspiracy theory.
We live in a world that does not believe in conspiracy theories, a world that does not believe in God, or in a devil, and thus, they dismiss anything of the sort, including evil and conspiracies.
The idea that the Vatican could ever fall under the control of the Freemasons seems so unlikely to them that it is simply not possible, but to dismiss such is to dismiss the concept of the devil, to dismiss the fact that this entity seeks the destruction of Christ's Church, that he would never make such an attempt to destroy it as a parasite from within. But for those who do believe, who do believe that there is a conspiracy of the powers of darkness against the Church of Christ, this does not appear too far off the wall, but is in fact a possibility, and for some, even a reality.
What is certain is that what happened between 1958 and 1969 did result in a mass apostasy from the Church, tens of thousands of priests did leave their vocation, hundreds of thousands of religious did leave their houses and flock to the secular realm, Things did turn for the worse, and many evil things have resulted since then, and these facts must be admitted.

Argumentative Rhetoric

"Barbarism likewise threatens when men cease to talk together according to reasonable laws. There are laws of argument, the observance of which is imperative if discourse is to be civilized. Argument ceases to be civil when it is dominated by passion and prejudice . . . when dialogue gives way to a series of monologues . . . when the parties to the conversation cease to listen to one another, or hear only what they want to hear, or see the other's argument only through the screen of their own categories; when defiance is flung to the basic ontological principle of all ordered discourse, which asserts that Reality is an analogical structure, within which there are variant modes of reality, to each of which there corresponds a distinctive method of thought that imposes on argument its own special rules. When things like this happen, men cannot be locked together in argument. Conversation becomes merely quarrelsome or querulous. Civility dies with the death of the dialogue."

John Courtney Murray, We Hold These Truths

It seems that many people simply don't know much about argumentative rhetoric, and they go into a discussion thinking that they can make bold claims with no substantiation and expect it to stand all alone against a critical world, while attacking their opponents in the discussion with extreme patsied strawmen. I thought it prudent to ennumerate some of these:

1: Argumentum ad hominem: This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information. Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

Nothing more quickly degenerates a discussion than when people start attacking those making the arguments rather than refuting the arguments themselves. The character, circumstances, or political ideology of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended.

It impacts traditionalists because novus ordos spend a lot of time attacking Traditionalists as though they are schismatic dissenters, rather than examining the tenability of their actual reasons for not being novus ordo, this is mostly from the novus ordo hierarchy but the majority of sheeple novus ordos follow in their lead, and attack based on labels, because that is one way that dishonest arguments are furthered and gobbled up by lots of people: someone who holds one opinion in one regard is misrepresented and then labeled something rather unlikeable, and so the majority condemns both the person and the ideology based on the labels and names aimed by the mainstream shepherds, and so the ideology is not heeded based on the ideology itself, not because it is erroneous or immoral, but because the mainstream higher-ups have disclaimed it. They condemn what they do not understand, they condemn because of the fact that it might mean it might place them in a bad light, not because of there being anything wrong with the argument itself.

2. Burden of proof "He who asserts must prove." The burden generally rests with the proposer, which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition.This is one of the most critical aspects of proper argumentation and requires that one carefully guard himself from making groundless statements. Every proposition should be supported by either logic or evidence.

This one is a continuation of the above discussion in that one side will say that the other side is wrong, but will not bother to demonstrate their argument, but rather simply make an allegation of error, with no basis in known fact.

3. The Red Herring: This means introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. The term red herring is sometimes used loosely to refer to any kind of diversionary tactic, such as presenting relatively unimportant arguments to distract them from more important issues. The most common of these is the quibble over grammar, respond to the argument, not to the spelling, they spend more time on the opponent's spelling and person, in an ad hominum way in the usual, though it is good to point out significant errors that impact the validity of a claim, but not solely for the purpose of embarrassing or attacking the opponent.

This one is also a common thing in argumentation in that sometimes an opponent, rather than refute the argument at hand, will shift the discussion to an attack on the competency of the one presenting the issue to change the focus off of the issue being discussed to an attack on the person and competency of the latter, a dishonest tactic, but commonly employed. It is these that lead to misunderstandings and many unneeded issues between good Catholics.