No True Scotsman Fallacy

[inocente]

The CCC is making the claim that the Church is “one, holy, catholic and apostolic” in her deepest identity AND that “deepest identity” is in the person of Christ who exists and grows in the hearts of those “incorporated into him.” The Church is identified with the members who are united to Christ in precisely this way and thereby form the “Body of Christ,” the Church.

That would mean that “apostolic” applies to the person of Christ, which doesn’t seem to make sense.

I still don’t see what this has to do with the OP. How can an individual Catholic be holy, catholic and apostolic using the definitions of those words given in CCC 867-869?

And then how do you, laity, know what criteria to apply to “holy, catholic and apostolic” to decide who is or is not a true Catholic? Where in the CCC does it say you, laity, can or ought do this, and where are the guidelines for how and when laity should do this to each other?

 

[inocente]

inocente;12463476:

If you say something about a group, you’re saying it of every individual in that group. And if you say a politician is not a true Catholic, then by implication you’re saying that those who vote for her are not true Catholics, and you run the risk of sowing discord and division in your church.

Some Protestants are invincibly ignorant of Catholic theology and have that excuse for opposing Catholic theology because they have been deceived by all the anti-Catholic propaganda of many generations in their families.

You’ll have to explain how that relates in any way to my post.

And please stop sticking out you tongue at me at the end of each post. That’s an ad hominem

You were replying to post #88 which doesn’t contain any smilies, not even one. It is devoid of smilies. So I don’t see what you’re on about. I think I did it in two posts. Not in every post. Just in two. Two. Not every. A few. Just two.

 

[inocente]

I am not clear that pointing at discord or division and calling it out for what it is constitutes “sowing” discord.

The reality may be that those who dissent are the ones sowing the discord and someone who identifies it as such is merely reporting that “We have a problem, here!”

A healthy body has mechanisms for identifying foreign entities or cancerous cells that have “gone rogue.” While it may be true that a healthy body does have differing roles and members tasked with unique jobs to do, there is an underlying unity of purpose. When members lose the primary intent of the whole body and act contrary to the good of the body, those “members” are best identified as endangering the health of the body as a whole.

At times invasive foreign entities (viruses and germy thingies) enter the body pretending to be a part of it, but seek to harm it “from the inside” so to speak. That is when the body’s defensive system comes into action and identifies the foreign bodies as intruders - wolves among sheep - pretending to be part of the body, but really functioning as cancerous cells.

So, to identify what it means to be a “true” Catholic is akin to identifying what it means to be a member of a healthy body - a cell in that body - which is functioning “true to” or in accord with the ultimate good of the body. Best to identify invasive cells or cancerous cells for what they are - destructive to the health of the body.

If that was true then it would be a very important function for laity to identify and root out these wolves. There would be procedures going back centuries. There would be local councils in each diocese and parish manned by trusted laity to determine who is pretending and how to expose them.

There aren’t though, unless it’s very different in your neck of the woods. It sounds stupendously dangerous, a great way to breed paranoia and suspicion and sow discord. Like McCarthyism.

That kind of thing has a name. Witch hunt.

 

[inocente]

What Paul - who, by the way, first explicated the ‘mystical Body of Christ’ - is getting at when he says “Drive out the wicked person from among you” is quite consistent with ridding a healthy body of invasive or cancerous cells. There is no quote mining here, just a consistent implication from the entirety of Paul’s theology concerning what the Church as the “Mystical Body of Christ” is.

How is that a job for laity? Can laity do excommunications in your neck of the woods? Have you run out of priests and bishops then?

 

[inocente]

It might be a good idea to distinguish between sinners who recognize what sin is and are sincerely trying to be healed from sin and be redeemed as against those who, for whatever reason, are attempting to undermine the purpose of the Church and God’s plan for salvation by making evil appear to be good and good appear to be evil.

In the case of the former, the Church is a hospital for sinners.

In the case of the latter, the Church is not a refuge for scoundrels or wolves who, under the cover of innocuous “appearances” are only interested in the destruction of others and profiting from evil. Jesus, himself, portrayed those “types” as serpents whose only intent is outfitting those they encounter for hell.

If you want to insist we have no way of knowing or recognizing the difference between these two instances, then we are really in trouble because our “defenses” have been completely compromised and the ramparts finally breached.

That is your take, fortunately, because Jesus’ claim is quite different: “The gates of hell will NOT prevail…”

I want to see the documentation and authorization from the Church for laity doing this. I mean in the spirit of the OP we need to question whether your proposal is true Catholicism.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That would mean that “apostolic” applies to the person of Christ, which doesn’t seem to make sense.

“Apostolic” is important precisely because the historical, spiritual and authoritative connection to the “person of Christ” is maintained. It is the “person of Christ” who, in fact, makes “apostolic” an crucial characteristic: it derives from Christ through the Apostles to us. Maintaining that connection is how it applies to the person of Christ. The authority, teaching and person of Christ was important in history and through his place in history to us today.

Our reality as “Catholic” and “Christian” is not merely concocted in our spiritual imaginations or individual consciences today, but is grounded in objective reality that has been witnessed to in historical fact.

Why do you suppose the Old Testament writers were so careful to trace the genealogical lineage of key individuals in Biblical history? You don’t think that might have something to do with physical reality and historical validity?

Perhaps, even with genetics? Perhaps God was rehabilitating a defective genetic order through the “Chosen people” in order to bring about the decidedly human person of Mary with the “immaculate” traits (genetics included) that would allow the Incarnation of God into a suitable human body?

It also explains something about the continuity of that “Body” (the Church) through the Eucharist, which Catholics believe is the “body, blood, soul and divinity” of Christ passed on to us through the sacraments by Apostolic succession.

In other words, “apostolic” connects us directly to Christ in his humanity as well as his divinity, through the Eucharist.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I mean in the spirit of the OP we need to question whether your proposal is true Catholicism.

So, you are implying there is a “true” form of Catholicism to which any particular claimant to being “Catholic” could, in principle, be known - either to him/herself and/or to others - to be aligned or “true” to it?

In other words, if there is a “true Catholicism,” then there could, in principle, be “true Catholics?”

Notice, how this quandary is susceptible to a form of the Euthyphro problem.

Are “true Catholics” merely to be “true to” what “Catholics” generally believe to be true BECAUSE those things are believed by Catholics, or are “true Catholics” necessarily those who are “true to” what “Catholicism” is BECAUSE it is true, independently of what “Catholics” generally believe?

In other words, if there is a “true Catholicism” there MUST also be “true Catholics” who are aligned or “true to” it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I want to see the documentation and authorization from the Church for laity doing this. I mean in the spirit of the OP we need to question whether your proposal is true Catholicism.

Nobody ever said what you keep saying we said: that laity ever set themselves up as prosecutors or jury to to indict and convict people for not being Catholics true to their faith. When that becomes necessary to do, there is a formal process for bishops and popes to follow. However, laity have the right to look at some Catholics and have an opinion as to whether they are true to their faith or betraying their faith. I can say that Judas was not true to his calling as an apostle without going through a bishop to draw that conclusion. I can say that Hitler was not true to his Catholic baptism without going through a bishop or pope to draw that conclusion.

Why do you keep making these absurd accusations about laity in just about every other post?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It sounds stupendously dangerous, a great way to breed paranoia and suspicion and sow discord. Like McCarthyism.

That kind of thing has a name. Witch hunt.

No sir, the Catholics who are sowing discord are those who reject the true teachings of the Catholic Church.

It’s as plain and obvious as that.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If that was true then it would be a very important function for laity to identify and root out these wolves. There would be procedures going back centuries. There would be local councils in each diocese and parish manned by trusted laity to determine who is pretending and how to expose them.

There aren’t though, unless it’s very different in your neck of the woods. It sounds stupendously dangerous, a great way to breed paranoia and suspicion and sow discord. Like McCarthyism.

That kind of thing has a name. Witch hunt.

Well, no, actually.

This “kind of thing” only becomes a “witch hunt” when there is a further implication that witches need hunting or that “hunting” is the most effective or best way of dealing with them.

Again, you jump to conclusions.

Jesus identified the scribes and Pharisees as a “brood of vipers,” but he never said, “Now, let’s hunt the vipers down!”

What you seem to be claiming is that identifying “vipers” as “vipers,” or “wolves” as “wolves,” simply should not be done nor, in fact, is possible because they are either impossible to so identify and/or it would be wrong to do so.

I would suggest that neither are true.

It is possible to so identify those who harm or misrepresent “Catholicism” by what they/we say and do, but, also, that it is not necessary to engage in “hunting” them/us, merely to “tag” them/us, explain why they/we have been so tagged and why they/we are a danger to themselves and others. None of which imply hunting, necessarily.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I want to see the documentation and authorization from the Church for laity doing this. I mean in the spirit of the OP we need to question whether your proposal is true Catholicism.

Where, precisely, did I say this was a job for the laity?

Recall, that I mentioned that “membership” in the body of the Church means, true to Paul’s understanding, that there are different roles involved when one is a member of a body. Simply because the laity belong to or are one with the “Body” of the Church, does not entail the laity is responsible for carrying out all the responsibilities any of its members or the “whole” of the body are “tasked” with.

Priests, for example, have specific roles. The hierarchy has other roles. The laity has roles which do not specifically include excommunicating other members AND I never claimed it did.

To use the human body analogy, the laity are somewhat “generic” in their duties - kind of like “stem cells,” but not quite. In a human body, the immune system has specific cells (like white blood cells, antibodies, mucous and ear wax secreting tissue, etc.,) which are, indeed, tasked with removing foreign invaders or dealing with cancerous cells. You wouldn’t suppose that every cell in your body is devoted solely to the role of defending it against invaders or cancer, would you? Nothing else would get done to keep the body healthy.

My point was that the body, as a whole, is kept healthy by defending against invaders and cancer, but that does not entail the actual task of doing so falls on every member, just those equipped to do so. I think there actually is an “office” in the Church which does that job - vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_en.html

Interesting how neatly it all comes together, no?

 

[inocente]

“Apostolic” is important precisely because the historical, spiritual and authoritative connection to the “person of Christ” is maintained. It is the “person of Christ” who, in fact, makes “apostolic” an crucial characteristic: it derives from Christ through the Apostles to us. Maintaining that connection is how it applies to the person of Christ. The authority, teaching and person of Christ was important in history and through his place in history to us today.

Our reality as “Catholic” and “Christian” is not merely concocted in our spiritual imaginations or individual consciences today, but is grounded in objective reality that has been witnessed to in historical fact.

Why do you suppose the Old Testament writers were so careful to trace the genealogical lineage of key individuals in Biblical history? You don’t think that might have something to do with physical reality and historical validity?

Perhaps, even with genetics? Perhaps God was rehabilitating a defective genetic order through the “Chosen people” in order to bring about the decidedly human person of Mary with the “immaculate” traits (genetics included) that would allow the Incarnation of God into a suitable human body?

It also explains something about the continuity of that “Body” (the Church) through the Eucharist, which Catholics believe is the “body, blood, soul and divinity” of Christ passed on to us through the sacraments by Apostolic succession.

In other words, “apostolic” connects us directly to Christ in his humanity as well as his divinity, through the Eucharist.

I doubt whether many Catholics would agree that original sin or the “chosen people” is to do with genetics. It misunderstands genetics and is scientism, since it tries to explain even the deepest aspects of the faith in scientific terms.

And according to your thesis, a new Mary could be genetically engineered, and then a new Christ born out of a test tube.

Aside from the fact that you’re claiming Christ is an apostle.

Why not start a thread on your thesis and see how many Catholics agree with you? Perhaps you’ll get invited to the Vatican to talk about your insights.

 

[inocente]

So, you are implying there is a “true” form of Catholicism to which any particular claimant to being “Catholic” could, in principle, be known - either to him/herself and/or to others - to be aligned or “true” to it?

In other words, if there is a “true Catholicism,” then there could, in principle, be “true Catholics?”

Notice, how this quandary is susceptible to a form of the Euthyphro problem.

Are “true Catholics” merely to be “true to” what “Catholics” generally believe to be true BECAUSE those things are believed by Catholics, or are “true Catholics” necessarily those who are “true to” what “Catholicism” is BECAUSE it is true, independently of what “Catholics” generally believe?

In other words, if there is a “true Catholicism” there MUST also be “true Catholics” who are aligned or “true to” it.

You missed my point. You are telling us there is such a thing as a true Catholic. In which case we are entitled to ask if you are a true Catholic, or are one of those wolves you talk about.

If you are a true Catholic then there must be such a thing as a true Catholic. You said that “to identify what it means to be a “true” Catholic is akin to identifying what it means to be a member of a healthy body - a cell in that body - which is functioning “true to” or in accord with the ultimate good of the body. Best to identify invasive cells or cancerous cells for what they are - destructive to the health of the body.”

In which case we’d expect to see the procedure written down for this important task of identifying true Catholics from these “invasive cells”. This is the Church, it is apostolic, it follows traditions, it has standards, it writes important things down.

But you’ve not cited these procedures, even though you’ve been asked several times. So, backtracking the logic, unless you produce these procedures then obviously your claim cannot be shared by the Church.

 

[inocente]

Nobody ever said what you keep saying we said: that laity ever set themselves up as prosecutors or jury to to indict and convict people for not being Catholics true to their faith. When that becomes necessary to do, there is a formal process for bishops and popes to follow. However, laity have the right to look at some Catholics and have an opinion as to whether they are true to their faith or betraying their faith. I can say that Judas was not true to his calling as an apostle without going through a bishop to draw that conclusion. I can say that Hitler was not true to his Catholic baptism without going through a bishop or pope to draw that conclusion.

Why do you keep making these absurd accusations about laity in just about every other post?

You’ve said “We have been talking about true and false Christians in the generic sense” while you (and Peter) have also referred to driving out individuals (e.g. post #73).

But you’ve not cited any approved process or criteria for doing either of that.

I asked you what does your priest say, does he think it’s a good idea for you to tell someone she is not a true Catholic? (post #81). You forgot to answer.

You criticized all the things Baptists use to interpret scripture (my list included bible study groups, house groups, respecting the writers, not taking verses out of context, being objective, reading scholarship and commentaries).

But when I asked you to list the methods and aids available to you as a Catholic, you forgot to answer.

So all I’ve see is a couple of laity on the internet making claims for which you’ve not provided any backing from the Church. You seem to have retreated to a position where it’s just your personal opinion of people long dead or amorphous groups such as politicians. Fine, but as scripture still says: “whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.” (Rom 14)

 

[inocente]

No sir, the Catholics who are sowing discord are those who reject the true teachings of the Catholic Church.

It’s as plain and obvious as that.

Takes two to tango. Is it better to try to reconcile?

*How good and pleasant it is
when God’s people live together in unity!

It is like precious oil poured on the head,
running down on the beard,
running down on Aaron’s beard,
down on the collar of his robe.
It is as if the dew of Hermon
were falling on Mount Zion.
For there the Lord bestows his blessing,
even life forevermore.*

 

[inocente]

Well, no, actually.

This “kind of thing” only becomes a “witch hunt” when there is a further implication that witches need hunting or that “hunting” is the most effective or best way of dealing with them.

No, generally witch hunts are started by those in need of a scape goat. c.f. hunting out the supposed international financial conspiracy of Jews leading to the Holocaust.

*Again, you jump to conclusions.

Jesus identified the scribes and Pharisees as a “brood of vipers,” but he never said, “Now, let’s hunt the vipers down!”

What you seem to be claiming is that identifying “vipers” as “vipers,” or “wolves” as “wolves,” simply should not be done nor, in fact, is possible because they are either impossible to so identify and/or it would be wrong to do so.

I would suggest that neither are true.

It is possible to so identify those who harm or misrepresent “Catholicism” by what they/we say and do, but, also, that it is not necessary to engage in “hunting” them/us, merely to “tag” them/us, explain why they/we have been so tagged and why they/we are a danger to themselves and others. None of which imply hunting, necessarily.*

You were talking of rooting out cancer cells. Apparently you’ve changed your mind.

 

[inocente]

Where, precisely, did I say this was a job for the laity?

Recall, that I mentioned that “membership” in the body of the Church means, true to Paul’s understanding, that there are different roles involved when one is a member of a body. Simply because the laity belong to or are one with the “Body” of the Church, does not entail the laity is responsible for carrying out all the responsibilities any of its members or the “whole” of the body are “tasked” with.

Priests, for example, have specific roles. The hierarchy has other roles. The laity has roles which do not specifically include excommunicating other members AND I never claimed it did.

To use the human body analogy, the laity are somewhat “generic” in their duties - kind of like “stem cells,” but not quite. In a human body, the immune system has specific cells (like white blood cells, antibodies, mucous and ear wax secreting tissue, etc.,) which are, indeed, tasked with removing foreign invaders or dealing with cancerous cells. You wouldn’t suppose that every cell in your body is devoted solely to the role of defending it against invaders or cancer, would you? Nothing else would get done to keep the body healthy.

My point was that the body, as a whole, is kept healthy by defending against invaders and cancer, but that does not entail the actual task of doing so falls on every member, just those equipped to do so. I think there actually is an “office” in the Church which does that job - vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19730705_mysterium-ecclesiae_en.html

Interesting how neatly it all comes together, no?

Is that a climbdown? You now seem to agree you are not part of the immune system and it’s nothing to do with you. (Incidentally, not sure why you keep using scientific analogies for everything, as if the body of the church had no meaning before the discovery of the immune system).

So does the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (once called the Inquisition I think) talk about true and not true Catholics?

If it doesn’t, when it’s where the expertise and responsibility is, then lay people should follow its example, and my work here is done.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You’ve said “We have been talking about true and false Christians in the generic sense” while you (and Peter) have also referred to driving out individuals (e.g. post #73).

Well now it’s painfully obvious that you are grasping at straws.

Post # 73 begins with a quotation from Jesus. Are you now disputing what Jesus says?

My words in the rest of the post are as follows:

**When Christ says Beware of false prophets," is he not asking us to discern who is false and who is true?

“By their fruits you will know them.” Are we not asked to discern who is true and who is false? **

Where did I say anything about driving out individuals? I don’t recall Peter saying anything about driving out individuals either.

If you are going to start falsifying your references, any further discussion with you seems pointless.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So does the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (once called the Inquisition I think) talk about true and not true Catholics?

The Church historically has always fought heresy from within. It is still doing so today, as you can see from Pope Francis excommunicating an Australian priest. Do you think Francis regards this priest as a Catholic true to the priesthood and the faith?

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/09/27/pope-francis-excommunicates-australian-priest/

 

[Winterwolf00]

I find it amusing how many posters in the first page use the NTS fallacy to exclude immoral Catholics.

Being an immoral Catholic makes you no less a Catholic then a bad Muslim is no less a Muslim.

Some bad people were Muslims as well as some good, Malcolm X comes to mind as he was a member of the Nation of Islam.