No True Scotsman Fallacy

[davidv]

Yes, baptism opens us up to all kinds of sanctifying grace and manifestly increases our chances of salvation. However, baptism does not guarantee us that we will be true to the grace and favor we have received. That is a choice we must make, and if we repudiate that source of grace, we are repudiating Christ himself. No true Christian, though he falls a thousand times, repudiates Christ. A self-styled Christian who lives as a pagan is not a true Christian.

As I pointed out in another thread, Jacques Maritain echoed Christ’s definition of a true Christian in his book The Range of Reason. “There are practical atheists who believe that they believe in God (and who perhaps believe in Him in their brains) but who in reality deny His existence by each one of their deeds. Out of the living God they have made an idol.” In other words, some people who call themselves Christians are lying to themselves, because no true Christian would behave in such a manner.

Hitler was adept at invoking God’s presence among his advancing armies, but it was all a lie. Privately he is reported to have sworn to destroy all religions as worthless. He did not fool most of the Catholics in the largely Catholic provinces of Germany, who voted against him as unworthy, though he managed to fool many of the Protestants who heavily favored him with their votes in the Protestant provinces.

He made an idol of himself and worshiped the idol.

Through baptism we become adopted children of God. No subsequent act or inaction will change this fact. Whether faithful, unfaithful, prodigal, it matters not. Any other demarcation is arbitrary, which is what makes the No True Scotsman a fallacy.

 

[Della]

Through baptism we become adopted children of God. No subsequent act or inaction will change this fact. Whether faithful, unfaithful, prodigal, it matters not. Any other demarcation is arbitrary, which is what makes the No True Scotsman a fallacy.

Yes. It’s not a matter of behavior or inner belief that makes one a “true” Catholic, it’s baptism. What we do after baptism will either make a good Catholic, an indifferent Catholic, a nominal Catholic or a bad Catholic, etc. But, we are still truly Catholic. Hitler, by reason of his baptism was a Catholic–a very bad Catholic, but a Catholic nontheless. His repudiation of his faith still could not erase the indelible mark of baptism on his soul. Therefore, he would be judged differently from one who had never heard of Christ who did similar acts of horror. At least the latter could claim some ignorance, while Hitler couldn’t.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yes. It’s not a matter of behavior or inner belief that makes one a “true” Catholic, it’s baptism. What we do after baptism will either make a good Catholic, an indifferent Catholic, a nominal Catholic or a bad Catholic, etc. But, we are still truly Catholic.

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’” Matthew 7:15-23

“I never knew you” must certainly mean, at the very least, “You are not a true Christian even if you are baptized.”

I think we are all getting hung up on the word “true.”

 

[schaeffer]

Yes. It’s not a matter of behavior or inner belief that makes one a “true” Catholic, it’s baptism. What we do after baptism will either make a good Catholic, an indifferent Catholic, a nominal Catholic or a bad Catholic, etc. But, we are still truly Catholic. Hitler, by reason of his baptism was a Catholic–a very bad Catholic, but a Catholic nontheless. His repudiation of his faith still could not erase the indelible mark of baptism on his soul. Therefore, he would be judged differently from one who had never heard of Christ who did similar acts of horror. At least the latter could claim some ignorance, while Hitler couldn’t.

I think this is the heart of it. “True”, is a poor word to use when describing whether or not someone is Catholic.

Terms like “lapsed”, “excommunicated”, “dissenting” etc are better, even the oft heard “cafeteria Catholic”, because all who are baptized ARE true Catholics, but those other differences are worth noting.

 

[schaeffer]

I think we are all getting hung up on the word “true.”

Well, the word “true” is pretty much what the thread is about…we are seeking to define how the term “true” applies or does not apply.

 

[DanielJT]

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Terms like “lapsed”, “excommunicated”, “dissenting” etc are better, even the oft heard “cafeteria Catholic”, because all who are baptized ARE true Catholics…

Not so sure about that. Baptism in itself does not confer the status of Catholic, so much as a status of being a child of God. Protestant baptisms, I understand, are considered valid by the Catholic Church, but we don’t think of Protestants as Catholics just because they have been validly baptized.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Not so sure about that. Baptism in itself does not confer the status of Catholic, so much as a status of being a child of God. Protestant baptisms, I understand, are considered valid by the Catholic Church, but we don’t think of Protestants as Catholics just because they have been validly baptized.

I suspect you are onto something here, especially when we look into the etymology of the word “Catholic.” It was initially used more by outsiders like reformers to describe those within the Church who accepted the authority of the Pope than it was by those within the Church itself.

True, the word “catholic” was first used by Ignatius, but that was more as a descriptive word to define a quality of the church as universal than as an appellative.

Only after the reformers had made use of “Catholic” or “Romish” or “Roman Catholic” to describe those who accept the authority of the Pope did it become self-referential by Catholics.

Therefore, “Catholic” in the sense of “Roman Catholic” means, by definition, someone who accepts the Magisterium of the Church, and who, by that acceptance, views themself as part of the larger body or ecclesia of the Church, not someone, necessarily who has the indelible mark of Baptism, which, as you point out applies to some non-Catholics, as well. So, a “true” Catholic, or someone who stays “true to” Church teaching would seem to be meaningful as a descriptive term.

See: newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So, a “true” Catholic, or someone who stays “true to” Church teaching would seem to be meaningful as a descriptive term.

 

[Della]

Not so sure about that. Baptism in itself does not confer the status of Catholic, so much as a status of being a child of God. Protestant baptisms, I understand, are considered valid by the Catholic Church, but we don’t think of Protestants as Catholics just because they have been validly baptized.

Protestants who are baptized with proper matter and intention are members of the Church, although imperfectly united to her. They too are indelibly marked for Christ and his Church. The fact that they never come into full communion doesn’t mean they are not part of the Church. They don’t use the word catholic, but they are still members, imperfectly joined by reason of their baptism, to the Church.
Charlemagne III; 1245165:

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’” Matthew 7:15-23

“I never knew you” must certainly mean, at the very least, “You are not a true Christian even if you are baptized.”

I think we are all getting hung up on the word “true.”

We must balance this verse with others like this one:

1Pet.3[21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…

We can most certainly lose our salvation by rejecting or abusing God’s graces, but this does not negate our membership in Christ’s Church. Rather, we are all the more accountable because of our baptism:

2Pt.2[20] For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
[21] For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.
[22] It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire.

Peter is talking about the baptized returning to a life of sin. Jesus was using hyperbole when he says “I never knew you.” Of course he knew them–he knows all of us. It’s merely an expression that says “you turned from me as if you never knew me, so I say to you I never knew you.” We are not Fundamentalists who think that God has salvation in mind for some but not for all–that not all can be saved. You seem to be inadvertently arguing that position.

The true Catholic is a baptized Catholic. He may turn from his faith and fall into grave sin without repentance, but he is still a member of the Church. He will be more culpable for his sins than the unbaptized who never heard of Christ because of his baptism. We cannot judge who is a “true” Catholic and who is not–the very word leaves open making that judgment. We can see Catholics who no longer practice or those who are cafeteria Catholics, and other such definitions because it is obvious, but as to who is a “true” Catholic is a faulty way of defining any Catholic because it requires we know that person’s commitment to Christ, which we cannot know.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

We cannot judge who is a “true” Catholic and who is not–the very word leaves open making that judgment. We can see Catholics who no longer practice or those who are cafeteria Catholics, and other such definitions because it is obvious, but as to who is a “true” Catholic is a faulty way of defining any Catholic because it requires we know that person’s commitment to Christ, which we cannot know.

I’m afraid I have to heartily disagree with this. A true Catholic is one who is true to the teachings of the Catholic Church. As Maritain pointed out, all the others behave like pagans and worship idols of their own making.

I don’t know where on earth you got this notion that a baptized Protestant is really a baptized Catholic in disguise. I’m certain he does not think of himself as a true Catholic.

 

[schaeffer]

Not so sure about that. Baptism in itself does not confer the status of Catholic, so much as a status of being a child of God. Protestant baptisms, I understand, are considered valid by the Catholic Church, but we don’t think of Protestants as Catholics just because they have been validly baptized.

Thanks for clearing that up! I’ll pass this information on to the Canon Lawyer who told me otherwise!

 

[schaeffer]

Protestants who are baptized with proper matter and intention are members of the Church, although imperfectly united to her. They too are indelibly marked for Christ and his Church. The fact that they never come into full communion doesn’t mean they are not part of the Church. They don’t use the word catholic, but they are still members, imperfectly joined by reason of their baptism, to the Church.

That is what I have been taught, that anyone who is saved, is done so by means of the Catholic Church and some mystical connection to it. That salvation is ONLY possible through the Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church on earth.

Sometimes this is more direct, through valid trinitarian baptism, even imperfectly as in being a member of a Protestant Church. Or baptism of intent, ignorance, etc.

Having been confused at one time about this, I did some research on it in Catholic writings and by speaking to Catholics who had studied this. This was a number of years ago so I cannot provide quotes and references at this time.

 

[Peter_Plato]

We can see Catholics who no longer practice or those who are cafeteria Catholics, and other such definitions because it is obvious, but as to who is a “true” Catholic is a faulty way of defining any Catholic because it requires we know that person’s commitment to Christ, which we cannot know.

If what it means to be “Catholic” is not known and cannot be known even by the person themselves, then the very word “Catholic” itself - and by extension, “true Catholic” - becomes a meaningless one. So if you want to argue that the term “true” Catholic is meaningless to us because the word “Catholic” is, be my guest, but you have just undermined the use of the term “Catholic” BECAUSE it describes an unknown (and cannot be known) entity of unknown (and cannot be known) quality. Of what worth or utility is that?

We, may as well, then, put the word “Catholic” to bed along with “true Catholic.”

As I said, however, and New Advent provides the evidence, the word “Catholic” has a distinct provenance that allows “true” to be used as an adjective along side of it.

 

[schaeffer]

catholic.com/quickquestions/if-im-baptized-as-a-catholic-does-that-mean-im-catholic-forever-even-if-i-marry-outsi

This might help.

It appears one is considered an actual Catholic unless they formally defect, or defect in such a way…public and obvious by practicing another faith for an extended amount of time.

So, people can bat around the word “true” however they like.

I maintain that a better way of describing those who are nominally or only baptized Catholic but not practicing, would be by the terms fallen away, lapsed, apathetic, dissenting, etc.

Or perhaps by terms like “untrue”, false, sham etc.

Back to the “true Scottsmen…” situation. In that situation we have a Scottsman, who disapproving of the behavior of another Scottsman and wishing to distance himself from him…declaring him not to be true.

It has nothing to do with actual reality, it has to do with one believing himself to be superior, and not wanting the term Scottsman sullied by those he disapproves of.

Not sure if that applies to people who want to reserve the term “true” for their own breed of Catholic, but it is the understanding of the “true Scottsman” story.

 

[Della]

I’m afraid I have to heartily disagree with this. A true Catholic is one who is true to the teachings of the Catholic Church. As Maritain pointed out, all the others behave like pagans and worship idols of their own making.

I don’t know where on earth you got this notion that a baptized Protestant is really a baptized Catholic in disguise. I’m certain he does not think of himself as a true Catholic.

Nowhere did I claim that a baptized Protestant is a Catholic in disguise. You are putting words into my mouth. I’ll quote the CCC:

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
855 The Church’s mission stimulates efforts towards Christian unity. Indeed, “divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her sons who, though joined to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full catholicity in all its aspects.”

Those who are baptized are members of the Church if imperfectly so. Protestants are called to Catholic unity, but though not in unity with the Church are still part of Christ’s Church by reason of their baptism. This is not my idea, it’s what the Church tells us.

Again, we cannot judge men’s hearts by what we see them do. Therefore the word “true” cannot be applied to those we think aren’t “Catholic enough” for our tastes.

Peter Plato–a Catholic is a Catholic because of his baptism. Plain and simple–it’s the very definition of who is a Catholic. Protestants and non-Christians may be joined by reason of their baptism–be it baptism by water, blood or desire, but they are not Catholics because they are not in full unity with the Church. This is the teaching of the Church as found in the CCC.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Nowhere did I claim that a baptized Protestant is a Catholic in disguise. You are putting words into my mouth. I’ll quote the CCC:

When people are excommunicated from the Church, or leave the Church on their own, they do not lose the indelible mark of baptism which the Catholic Church has conferred on them. In that sense, they are still imbued with Catholic sanctifying grace. But if they die and go to hell, I don’t believe it would be quite proper any longer to call them Catholics true to their Catholic faith.

So I think we are caught up in semantics here. If someone says of Hitler, for example, that he was not true to his Catholic baptism, would you say that was not the right way to put it?

I think that is what Antony Flew was aiming at when he said you can’t say “no true Catholic” any more than you could say “no true Scotsman” of any Scotsman who had committed a heinous crime. But I don’t agree with him. Hitler was not true to his Catholic baptism, and while he still wore the indelible mark of that baptism, he only wore it on his sleeve, not in his heart. And that is not to wear it truly. Would you say, with respect to Hitler, that,as you said above, “we cannot judge men’s hearts by what we see them do”?

Let me define “true” in this context as sincerely and loyally convinced of the obligation to behave the way a Catholic is supposed to behave.

Do you not agree with this interpretation of “true”? If not, why not?

 

[inocente]

When people are excommunicated from the Church, or leave the Church on their own, they do not lose the indelible mark of baptism which the Catholic Church has conferred on them. In that sense, they are still imbued with Catholic sanctifying grace. But if they die and go to hell, I don’t believe it would be quite proper any longer to call them Catholics true to their Catholic faith.

So I think we are caught up in semantics here. If someone says of Hitler, for example, that he was not true to his Catholic baptism, would you say that was not the right way to put it?

I think that is what Antony Flew was aiming at when he said you can’t say “no true Catholic” any more than you could say “no true Scotsman” of any Scotsman who had committed a heinous crime. But I don’t agree with him. Hitler was not true to his Catholic baptism, and while he still wore the indelible mark of that baptism, he only wore it on his sleeve, not in his heart. And that is not to wear it truly. Would you say, with respect to Hitler, that,as you said above, “we cannot judge men’s hearts by what we see them do”?

Let me define “true” in this context as sincerely and loyally convinced of the obligation to behave the way a Catholic is supposed to behave.

Do you not agree with this interpretation of “true”? If not, why not?

I think you all may be in danger of missing Flew’s point, which is that adding the word “true” always indicates an unreasoned claim:

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the “Brighton (England)] Sex Maniac Strikes Again”. Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing”. The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen (Scotland)] man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing”.

A person is either Scottish or is not Scottish, there is no halfway house.
A person is either Catholic or is not Catholic, there is no halfway house.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

A person is either Scottish or is not Scottish, there is no halfway house. A person is either Catholic or is not Catholic, there is no halfway house.

You are talking about citizenship only. The same error that Flew made.

Neither you, a Baptist, nor Flew, an atheist, have the right to define whether a Catholic is true to his faith. That is for Catholics to decide. We decide by judging a man’s actions. We can tell from his actions whether he truly worships God or Mammon.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Neither you, a Baptist, nor Flew, an atheist, have the right to define whether a Catholic is true to his faith.

Sure they do. Whether or not individuals or groups accept this definition is another matter.