Light of Nations (Part Two)

II. Aggiornamento + Ressourcement = Second Vatican Council

In my last posting, we discussed how the anonymous Turretinfan had misused the "plainest and best sense" of the Lumen Gentium 16 in support of his claim that the Catholic Church teaches it is God's plan that a Muslim could be saved from eternal punishment through a zealous adherence to his faith. I will now undertake to offer my proofs for my contention that Turretinfan has misrepresented what the Catholic Church teaches in this regard.

In 1959, Pope John XXIII announced his intentions to call another ecumenical council. On October 11, 1962, Pope John XXIII opened the Second Vatican Council with an opening address in St. Peter’s Basilica. Relevant to the issues being discussed here, the Holy Father said:

“The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has been repeatedly taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.

“For this a Council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene, and tranquil adherence to all the teachings of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the Acts of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of the faith is one thing, and the way which it is presented is another. And it is the later that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.”

How to Repress Errors

“At the outset of the Second Vatican Council, it is evident, as always, that the truth of the Lord will remain forever. We see, in fact, as one age succeeds another, that the opinions of men follow one another and exclude each other. And often errors vanish as quickly as they arise, like fog before the sun."

[. . .]

“That being so, the Catholic Church, raising the torch of religious truth by means of this Ecumenical Council, desires to show herself to be the loving mother of all, benign, patient, full of mercy and goodness toward the brethren who are separated from her. To mankind, oppressed by so many difficulties, the Church says, as Peter said to the poor who begged alms from him: "I have neither gold nor silver, but what I have I give you; in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise and walk" (Acts 3:6). In other words, the Church does not offer to the men of today riches that pass, nor does she promise them merely earthly happiness. But she distributes to them the goods of divine grace which, raising men to the dignity of sons of God, are the most efficacious safeguards and aids toward a more human life. She opens the fountain of her life-giving doctrine which allows men, enlightened by the light of Christ, to understand well what they really are, what their lofty dignity and their purpose are, and, finally, through her children, she spreads everywhere the fullness of Christian charity, than which nothing is more effective in eradicating the seeds of discord, nothing more efficacious in promoting concord, just peace, and the brotherly unity of all.”

“The Church's solicitude to promote and defend truth derives from the fact that, according to the plan of God, who wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (l Tim. 2:4), men without the assistance of the whole of revealed doctrine cannot reach a complete and firm unity of minds, with which are associated true peace and eternal salvation.”

Unfortunately, the entire Christian family has not yet fully attained this visible unity in truth.

The Catholic Church, therefore, considers it her duty to work actively so that there may be fulfilled the great mystery of that unity, which Jesus Christ invoked with fervent prayer from His heavenly Father on the eve of His sacrifice. She rejoices in peace, knowing well that she is intimately associated with that prayer, and then exults greatly at seeing that invocation extend its efficacy with salutary fruit, even among those who are outside her fold.

Indeed, if one considers well this same unity which Christ implored for His Church, it seems to shine, as it were, with a triple ray of beneficent supernal light: namely, the unity of Catholics among themselves, which must always be kept exemplary and most firm; the unity of prayers and ardent desires with which those Christians separated from this Apostolic See aspire to be united with us; and the unity in esteem and respect for the Catholic Church which animates those who follow non-Christian religions.

In this regard, it is a source of considerable sorrow to see that the greater part of the human race–although all men who are born were redeemed by the blood of Christ–does not yet participate in those sources of divine grace which exist in the Catholic Church. Hence the Church, whose light illumines all, whose strength of supernatural unity redounds to the advantage of all humanity, is rightly described in these beautiful words of St. Cyprian:

"The Church, surrounded by divine light, spreads her rays over the entire earth. This light, however, is one and unique and shines everywhere without causing any separation in the unity of the body. She extends her branches over the whole world. By her fruitfulness she sends ever farther afield he rivulets. Nevertheless, the head is always one, the origin one for she is the one mother, abundantly fruitful. We are born of her, are nourished by her milk, we live of her spirit' (De Catholicae Eccles. Unitate, 5).

Venerable brothers, such is the aim of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which, while bringing together the Church's best energies and striving to have men welcome more favourably the good tidings of salvation, prepares, as it were and consolidates the path toward that unity of mankind which is required as a necessary foundation, in order that the earthly city may be brought to the resemblance of that heavenly city where truth reigns, charity is the law, and whose extent is eternity (Cf. St. Augustine, Epistle 138, 3). (Emphasis Mine)

Abbot, Walter. The Documents of the Vatican II: With Notes and Comments by Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Authorities. New York: Guild Press (1966), pgs. 715-718.

On October 20, 1962, the fathers of the Second Vatican Council issued a Message to Humanity directed to all the people of the world. This document was significant because it was the first time that an Ecumenical Council addressed itself to all men, not just members of the Catholic Church. This document serves to set forth the purpose of the Second Vatican Council and defines what it means when it talks of a “plan of salvation”:

"In this assembly, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we wish to inquire how we ought to renew ourselves, so that we may be found increasingly faithful to the gospel of Christ. We shall take pains so to present to the men of this age God's truth in its integrity and purity that they may understand it and gladly assent to it.

Since we are shepherds, we desire that all those may have their longing satisfied who seek God "if perhaps they might find Him as they grope after Him; though indeed He is not far from each of us" (Acts 17:27). Hence, obeying the will of Christ, who delivered Himself to death "that He might present to Himself the Church, not having spot or wrinkle...but that she might be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:27), we as pastors devote all our energies and thoughts to the renewal of ourselves and the flocks committed to us, so that there may radiate before all men the lovable features of Jesus Christ, who shines in our hearts "that God's splendor may be revealed" (2 Cor. 4:6).

God so Loved the World

We believe that the Father so loved the world that He gave His own Son to save it. Indeed, Through this same Son of His He freed us from bondage to sin, reconciling all things unto himself through Him, "making peace through the blood of his cross" (Col. 1:20), so that "we might be called sons of God, and truly be such." The Spirit too has been bestowed on us by the Father, that living the life of God, and the brethren, who are all of us one in Christ. It is far from true that because we cling to Christ we are diverted from earthly duties and toils. On the contrary, faith, hope, and the love of Christ impel us to serve our brothers, thereby, patterning ourselves after the example of the Divine Teacher, who "came not to be served but to serve" (Mt. 20:28). Hence, the Church too was not born to dominate but to serve. He laid down His life for us, and we too ought to lay down our lives for our brothers (1 Jn. 3:16).

Accordingly, while we hope that the light of faith will shine more clearly and more vigorously as a result of this Council's efforts, we look forward to a spiritual renewal from which will also flow a happy impulse on behalf of human values such as scientific discoveries, technological advances, and a wider diffusion of knowledge.

The Love of Christ Impels Us

Coming together in unity from every nation under the sun, we carry in our hearts the hardships, the bodily and mental distress, the sorrows, longings, and hopes of all the peoples entrusted to us. We urgently turn our thoughts to all the anxieties by which modern man is afflicted. Hence, let our concern swiftly focus first of all on those who are especially lowly, poor, and weak. Like Christ, we would have pity on the multitude weighed down with hunger, misery, and lack of knowledge. We want to fix a steady gaze on those who still lack the opportune help to achieve a way of life worthy of human beings.

As we undertake our work, therefore, we would emphasize whatever concerns the dignity of man, whatever contributes to a genuine community of peoples. "Christ's love impels us," (2 Cor. 5:14) for "he who sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in Him?" (1 Jn. 3:17)

[. . .]

The Power of the Holy Spirit

To be sure, we are lacking in human resources and earthly power. Yet we lodge our trust in the power of God's Spirit, who was promised to the Church by the Lord Jesus Christ. Hence we humbly and ardently call for all men to work along with us in building up a more just and brotherly city in this world. We call not only upon our brothers whom we serve as shepherds, but also upon all our brother Christians, and the rest of men of good will, whom God "wills that they be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). For this is the divine plan, that through love God's kingdom may already shine out on earth in some fashion as a preview of God's eternal kingdom. The world is still far from the desired peace because of threats arising from the very progress of science, marvelous though it be, but not always responsive to the higher law of morality. Our prayer is that in the midst of this world there may radiate the light of our great hope in Jesus Christ, our only Savior." (Emphasis Mine)

Abbot, Walter. Ibid. at pgs 3-7.

These two preliminary documents make it plain what God’s divine plan is: God wishes for all men to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:4). Both documents make it plain that Jesus Christ as the light to the world is the sole source of man’s salvation. Finally, both documents make it plain that the light of Christ radiates from the Catholic Church whose mission is to bring men to the truth of Christ as the sole source of salvation. As we will see in my next posting, these themes repeat themselves in Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.

Light of Nations (Part One)

“It would be quite wrong to take the [Second Vatican] Council’s decrees as a complete exposition of the Faith”. ~Pope Paul VI

Prayer of the Council Fathers

“We are here before You, O Holy Spirit, conscious of our innumerable sins, but united in a special way in Your Holy Name. Come and abide with us. Deign to penetrate our hearts. Be the guide of our actions, indicate the path we should take, and show us what we must do so that, with Your help, our work may be in all things pleasing to You."

"May You be our only inspiration and the overseer of our intentions, for You alone possess a glorious name together with the Father and the Son."

"May You, who are infinite justice, never permit that we be disturbers of justice. Let not our ignorance induce us to evil, nor flattery sway us, nor moral and material interest corrupt us. But unite our hearts to You alone, and do it strongly, so that, with the gift of Your grace, we may be one in You and may nothing depart from the truth."

"Thus, united in Your name, may we in our every action follow the dictates of Your mercy and justice, so that today and always our judgments may not be alien to You and in eternity we may obtain the unending reward of our actions. Amen.”

[Composed by St. Isidore of Seville and recited at both the First Vatican Council and at the beginning of each session of the Second Vatican Council]

I. Introduction

Over on his blog, Turretinfan has offered a lengthy reply to the article I wrote here critiquing his claim that the Catholic Church teaches that Islam is salvific. At the time I wrote the article, Turretinfan originally advanced the premise that Vatican II had proclaimed that a Muslim who ZEALOUSLY followed Islam could be saved from eternal destruction. His example of a zealous follower of Islam that the Catholic Church would claim is saved had to do with a Muslim man who first cut out the tongue of his daughter and then killed her after “debating” her about the merits of Islam after he discovered that she had converted to Christianity. His original comments were:

“Question for my readers who follow Vatican 2's proclamation that "the plan of salvation includes" Muslims: Can you see from the example above that zealously following Islam leads to eternal destruction? If so, how do you justify to yourself your church's claim? Can you not admit that your church has erred on this point?”

In other words, Turretinfan would have one believe that the Catholic Church teaches that a parricide who kills his daughter can be saved through such a zealous example of his Islamic faith. My response to his original salacious charge has already been posted on this Blog. Since my friend, Jamie Donald, provided an excellent summary of what the Catholic Church states in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in regards to whether non-Christians can be saved outside of the Catholic Church, I originally was going to only supplement that response with several post-Vatican II magisterial documents that I felt would be helpful for BJ Buracker and the reader and more authoritative than “Hoffer on Lumen Gentium 16.” However, after I saw Turretinfan’s reply and the fact that he subtly altered the premise of his claim much in the same manner that Senator Obama has recently altered his campaign slogan from “Change You Can Believe In” to “Change We Need,” I felt that I had to give a more in-depth response. He wrote:

“The question is whether God graciously rewards those who follow Islam, not whether adherence to Islam is itself meritorious in the sense mentioned in the above block quotation. [My sur-rebuttal: God does not, but the question he asked originally suggested that the Catholic Church did so teach such] Catholicism claims not to believe in such salvation through meritorious adherence to religion. [My sur-rebuttal: Wrong. Adherence to the Catholic faith out of love for God and each other does save.] ”

He goes on to state:

“[...] I should point that many Roman Catholics do actually believe that following Islam will save you. "I believe that all roads lead to the same place," is the way I once heard a very elderly Roman Catholic put it. [My sur-rebuttal: Fallacious argumentation and irrelevant to boot as many Protestants, the Reformed variety included, believe the same thing.] That, however, is a moot point. Inclusivism, as popular as it may be amongst the laity, is not (as such) official church dogma, at least not yet. [My sur-rebuttal: Wrong. Pluralism is a heresy. Inclusivism is official Catholic dogma. If he had actually read Lumen Gentium as TF claims he did, he would have known that.]

Next, I should point out that saying that Muslims who practice Islam faithfully will be saved is different from saying that Islam itself is salvific. [My sur-rebuttal: this is true, but why didn’t you say that in the first place?] In fact, given the emphasis on grace, a consistent, conservative Roman Catholic would be hard-pressed to argue that even Catholicism itself is salvific (since salvation is by grace, not adherence to religion) [My sur-rebuttal: Objection! TF engages in fallacious reasoning of the Petitio Principii variety here. Without waiving the objection, I would state that God uses the Catholic Church as His primary vehicle to distribute both sanctifying and actual grace. Thus, in that sense adherence to religion is salvific. That being said, I would agree with Turretinfan to the extent that faith in another religion besides Catholicism is not salvific.]

Finally, I should note that Mr. Hoffer doesn't ever seem to dispute that Muslims who are Muslims (not Muslims who become Christians) are able to be saved as such. [My sur-rebuttal: Muslims who are invincibly ignorant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ or have never heard it preached might have a possibility of being saved, just like Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, pagans, animists, etc. . . It would appear that Christ has a means even for them to overcome their ignorance. Cf. 1 Pet. 4:6; 2 Pet. 2:4-10] Furthermore, that is the best and plainest sense both of Vatican 2's Lumen Gentium and JP2's Dominus Jesus (which, again, Mr. Hoffer does not seem to expressly dispute) [My sur-rebuttal: I may not have expressly disputed it because that was not the point I was contending against. I would respectfully voice my dissent to TF’s claim that his reading is the “best and plainest sense”of Lumen Gentium or Dominus Iesus. I will address this point at length here.]

In his attempt to escape the consequences of his erroneous claim that the Catholic Church teaches that a Muslim who zealously follows the tenets of his religion can be saved, his new argumentation demonstrated Turretinfan has more erroneous ideas about Catholicism. Turretinfan’s reply misinforms his audience on so many levels as to what Lumen Gentium states, let alone what the Catholic Church has taught for the last 2000 years on the subject as to whether non-Christians can be saved without belonging to the Church, I felt compelled to respond in the manner that follows.

You see, the problem is with his methodology. Given that Lumen Gentium is a conciliar and an authoritative magisterial document, one can derive the “best and plainest sense” of the few scraps of words that he is taken out of the document only by reading them in the context of the document itself and side-by-side with the other conciliar documents. Additionally, since the Catholic Church is interpreting Apostolic Tradition, the “best and plainest sense” of Lumen Gentium can be derived only from reading the document in the context of other authoritative expressions of the Catholic Church made throughout the Church’s history.

In his book, Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England Addressed to the Brothers of the Oratory in the Summer of 1851, pages 322-323, John Henry Cardinal Newman discusses the fundamental flaw of the Protestant way of studying Catholic doctrines:

Picked verses, bits torn from the context, half sentences, are the warrant of the Protestant Idea, of what is Apostolic truth, on the one hand, and, on the other, of what is Catholic falsehood. As they have their chips and fragments of St. Paul and St. John, so have they their chips and fragments of Suarez and Bellarmine; and out of the former they make to themselves their own Christian religion, and out of the latter our Anti-Christian superstition. They do not ask themselves sincerely, as a matter of fact and history, What did the Apostles teach then? nor do they ask sincerely, and as a matter of fact, What do Catholics teach now? They judge of the Apostles and they judge of us by scraps, and on these scraps they exercise their private judgment,—that is, their Prejudice[.]

Excerpted from Characteristics from the Writings of J.H. Newman. New York: D. & J. Sadlier & Co. (1876), arr. by William S. Lilly with the Author’s approval

Turretinfan’s undertaking to summarize what the Catholic Church teaches in regards to Muslims from a snippet of the Second Vatican Council’s Lumen Gentium 16 and Iesus Dominus is a modern-day example of what Cardinal Newman decried. While it is true that the Catholic Church teaches that God’s plan of salvation does include Muslims, he is wrong in suggesting that a part of God's plan as the Catholic Church teaches is that Muslims can be saved by a zealous adherence to Islam or that they can be saved at all if they reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To be blunt, the Catholic Church has never endorsed the heresy of Pluralism (which Turretinfan mistakenly calls Inclusivism). While one may choose to take snippets from the language of Lumen Gentium and then choose to give such snippets a facile interpretation that would suggest that the Catholic Church believes that other religions may be salvific, such a view is not sustainable when such excerpts are placed back into the context and read with all of the documents of Vatican II or the documents that have been promulgated later and studied next to what the Church has taught since the time of the apostles. It is important that Catholic documents be read in a Catholic manner in order to obtain a truer understanding of what the Catholic Church actually teaches.

We will start by reading some of the opening documents of the Second Vatican Council in the next posting.

Unintended Consequences . . .

Over at Turretinfan's blog, he references an alleged exchange between himself and an anonymous lay Catholic apologist:

"A common myth that we hear from time to time from a number of different directions, is that Bibles were in essence Gutenberg's invention: a testimony to Northern European printing ingenuity, but not an ancient practice. Of course it is true that printed Bibles necessarily followed the development of printing, but Bibles were being made long before then. Likewise, others will claim that even if Bibles existed before the Reformation, they were so extraordinarily scarce that ordinary people could not possibly have them.

Indeed, I recently had the pleasure of interacting with a lay apologist for Catholicism who, buying into the myth, apparently believed that people didn't have Bibles before the sixteenth century."

He goes on to write a somewhat lengthy article dispelling the "myth" that ordinary people did not have access to Bibles prior to Gutenberg's time once again vanquishing another ignorant Catholic. The text of the entire article can be found here.

I wrote a comment which he apparently decided not to let appear on his blog, although he does not seem to have a problem posting other comments of adulation concerning his article. I wrote, typos and all:

I hear this canard often from Protestant polemicists. Perhaps this a myth that Protestants have invented, but having been to Europe and having seen several ancient monasteries in France where the Scriptures were copied, as well as seen the inside of a numer of ancient sanctuaries, they all had a place where the Scriptures were available to be read. I do not know of any educated Catholic who would make the claim that the Scriptures were so scarce in ancient or medieval times that very few could read them. Like the notion that medieval man believed in a "flat earth," this is simply a retelling of a Protestant fable that Martin Luther rescued the Bible from the Church. It is unfortunate that an anonymous lay apologist for Catholicism bought into the Protestant myth that the Catholic Church suppressed the Bible and kept it from the masses. Shame on them.

The fact of the matter is that most people did not have the Scriptures in their home where they could be read at leisure. There was no ancient Gideon Society distributing Bibles at every inn or tavern or Berean bookstore where one could go and buy them. Almost every Catholic church or chapel, monastery, convent, and priest would have a copy of the Scriptures so that they could be read and studied.

Additionally, I would suggest that many early Christians memorized the Scriptures. Memorization was a skill far more developed in former times than now.

For those who weren't literate, the Church had icons, statues, paintings, stained glass, not to mention the liturgies, hymns, chants, sacramentals, etc... which served to tell the story of the Gospel.

It is unfortunate that you didn't give a time period for your article. I still remember a couple of verses in Old English from Matthew that I had to memorize from the Wessex Gospels (10th century AD)in High School.

However, I do very much appreciate your corroboration in dispelling the Protestant myth that the Catholic Church prevented ordinary people from having access to the Scriptures.

God bless!

In short, while it is true that the Catholic Church has on occasion banned heretical or erroneous translations of the Scriptures. It has never kept the Bible out of the hands, hearts and minds of the faithful.

I DO truly appreciate it when one of our separated brethren dispel myths about the Catholic Church, in this case, Myth No. 30: "Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia" which may be found on page 8 of Loraine Boettner's sourcebook for anti-Catholic rants and raves, Roman Catholicism. Anti-Catholics often raise the claim that Catholic Church kept the Bible out of the hands of the people up to the time of the Reformation. It was nice to see Turretinfan, despite trying to get in his obligatory digs against Catholicism, take the time to undermine a cherished myth of Protestantism. One must wonder if that was his intention.

On the other hand, I DO find it unfortunate that Turretinfan picks and chooses what may appear as comments on his blog. When one places restrictions on what one may see and hear in the marketplace of ideas, it has been my experience that people tend to end up doing their shopping elsewhere. Fortunately, I have my own blog and can post my replies here.

NEXT UP: "Light of Nations" ~I promise!

Rhetorically Speaking...Petting Turretinfan’s Peeves.

I just thought I would address Turretinfan’s latest comments over the my alleged misuse of the label “begging the question” in connection with my discussion of the Plurium Interrogationum fallacy:

Mr. Hoffer, in a new post (link) seems to miss the point of my correction of his irregular use of the term "begging the question" to describe plurium interrogationum. So that things are clear for him, I'm saying that his accusation/objection should have been to "complex question" or "loaded question" if he was objecting to a fallacy of plurium interrogationum (and I have assumed that it was his intent to object to plurium interrogationum, as petitio principii would be an even less appropriate, for the formal reasons Mr. Hoffer outlines in his post). The phrase "begging the question" derives from the petitio principii fallacy, not the plurium interrogationum fallacy. As well, the preferred spelling of petitio principii is ending with two "i"s (i.e. four total "i"s in the word).

I take it from his latest comments that he does not recognize my 23 years experience as a trial attorney nor the fact that I have an undergraduate degree in Political Science and a Juris Doctor degree as sufficient qualification for me to recognize and label his fallacious reasoning. Unfortunately for him, I do not recognize the ever-anonymous Turretinfan as an authority on fallacies either. He adduces no evidence or documentation to support his bald assertion of my so-called irregular usage of the label “begging the question” nor does he provide the reader with any documentation of his training, education or experience showing his qualifications to opine whether my usage of the label “begging the question” is correct or not.

Unlike my anonymous adversary, I am not asking you, the reader, to accept my argument on my say-so based on my college and graduate school-level education or 23 years of experience as a trial attorney. No, I offer the following documentation for your consideration:

Here is one definition of Plurium Interrogationum:

“An interrogative proposition allowing only one simple response, where two or more unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition, each one of the points requiring a different answer. Another form of this fallacy is to ask for an explanation of something which is untrue or not yet established. It is the interrogative form of Begging the Question fallacy. A complex question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.” (Emphasis mine) See, European Society for General Semantics definition of “Complex Question.” See also, this link.

The Fallacy Files , which categorizes and compiles hundreds of examples of fallacious arguments, is the brainchild of Dr. Gary N. Curtis, PhD, a professor of logic and philosophy, and one I highly recommend. Dr. Curtis defines Plurium Interrogationum as: “A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.”

Now, let’s look at Turretinfan’s original comments once again:

“Question for my readers who follow Vatican 2's proclamation that "the plan of salvation includes" Muslims: Can you see from the example above that zealously following Islam leads to eternal destruction? If so, how do you justify to yourself your church's claim? Can you not admit that your church has erred on this point?”

Please note by his use of question marks and more tellingly, by starting out his comments with the word “Question,” that Turretinfan made his representations of what the Catholic Church teaches “premises” of three questions he asked his Catholic readers. If he had stated his premises in the form of a sentence as opposed to a question, he would have been correct to assert that Petitio Principii and not Plurium Interrogationum was the correct labeling of his fallacious reasoning. However, since he had stated his fallacious premises in the form of interrogatives, I would submit based on the authorities I cited above that Plurium Interrogationum and not Petitio Principii is the proper name for his fallacious reasoning. Furthermore, I would also contend that I am well within my rights to use the phrase “Begging the question” in refuting an argument based on either Plurium Interrogationum or Petitio Principii fallacies.

Turretinfan’s argument on this matter highlights one of my own pet peeves, which is people (particularly anonymous ones) claiming that I “miss the point” on something and then offer no evidence or documentation to support their claim other than their personal argumentation. When one cloaks himself and hides under the mantle of anonymity as Turretinfan does, one should not engage in ipse dixit. See, here.

The Defense rests.

Rhetorically Speaking...

Turretinfan posted a lengthy response to my article that I posted yesterday about whether the Catholic Church teaches that Islam is salvific. While it will take time to sift through his argument and respond properly, I thought I would get one of the minor points out of the way, TF chides me in my usage of the term "begging the question" by claiming that I mislabeled his fallacious questions in calling them examples of the "begging the question" fallacy or plurium interrogationum instead of examples of the petitio principi fallacy.

Both are fallacies of presumption. Both have been called "begging the question" fallacies by rhetoricians. However, there is a distinct difference between the two fallacies. One is a kind of argument, the other a kind of interrogative. Petitio principi is a kind of fallacious argument with certain presumptions built into it. It's English derivative is more appropriately called circular argument or reasoning. The conclusion of the argument is merely a kind of restating of the premiss. In contrast, Plurium Interrogationum is a kind of question with certain presumptions built into it. It's English derivative is complex question. In fact, it might even be fair to say that Plurium Interrogationum is the interrogative form of a petitio principi fallacy.

Another difference between the two is that Petitio principi is always a fallacious form of argument. Plurium interrogationum may or may not be a fallacious form of question depending on whether the presumptions built into the question are based on the context of evidence previously submitted.

Thus, I would submit that Turretinfan's ire at my purported usage of term "begging the question" is misplaced. He was not making an argument at the time, he merely asked questions of "the followers of Vatican 2".

God bless!

Objection: Begging the Question!

Since the time I have been annointed as an apologist in the service of Rome by Professor White, I have been accused at times of reading things into what people write. Unfortunately, it would appear that it is a trait that some Protestant apologists suffer from as well.

Over on Turretinfan’s blog, TF suggests that Catholics believe that Islam is salvific. He states:

“Question for my readers who follow Vatican 2's proclamation that "the plan of salvation includes" Muslims: Can you see from the example above that zealously following Islam leads to eternal destruction? If so, how do you justify to yourself your church's claim? Can you not admit that your church has erred on this point?”

TF’s brief remarks above grossly distort what the Catholic Church teaches. Moreover, his questions as written as are a prime example of fallacy known as Plurium Interrogationum more commonly known as "begging the question". Simply put, one engages in Plurium Interrogationum when he asks a question which contains a false, disputed or question-begging presupposition as its premise. The obvious example law students are taught is, “Did you stop beating your wife?” The question first presupposes 1) you are married and 2) that some time prior to the question being asked, you beat your wife. Now, the problem is that the form of the question only allows the responder to answer the question two ways. If the responder says ‘yes’ then he has admitted that he has beaten his wife. If the responder says ‘no’, then an ambiguity arises from which the fact-finder or audience can infer that the responder has not stopped beating his wife when in fact the responder in all likelihood is actually stating that he never had beaten his wife in the first place. When such questions are used rhetorically, the writer is hoping to create in the mind of his audience a false impression that someone adheres to a view that they, in fact, do not adhere to. If an advocate used such questions in a court of law, the trial judge would sustain an objection to their use and order such questions stricken from the record.

In the case at bar, Turretinfan hopes to create the impression in the minds of his audience that the Catholic Church teaches that Islam is salvific when in fact it does not so teach nor has it ever taught that a person who is a zealous follower of Islam can be saved.

Proof of my contention that TF's questions are based on a false premise is as follows:

One of the basic documents of Vatican II is The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church also called Lumen Gentium (LG). At LG 16, it does indeed state that God’s “plan of salvation” include Muslims. Here is the full text as opposed to the snippet offered by Turretinfan:

Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention. (Emphasis mine).

A close reading of the section states why Muslims are included in the plan of salvation: because they claim to profess a belief in the God of Abraham. A proclamation indicating a belief in God is a step closer to accepting the fullness of His Gospel even if there is much error in what a Muslim may otherwise believe. If we accept that Muslims do in fact believe in the God of Abraham, then such a belief would make them more receptive to accepting the Gospel of Jesus Christ and thus be saved. As noted above, “Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.”

Scripture, itself, demonstrates that the truth contained in a pagan religion can prepare adherents to accept the Gospel of Christ. After all, did not St. Paul state to the pantheistic Athenians: "For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you." The entire pericope may be found at Acts 17:16-34.

Further documentation that TF has misstated the Church's position is as follows:

In Dominus Jesus (2000) a magisterial document released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith one may find the following:

"It would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her" (DJ 21).

And

"If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation" (DJ 22).

Likewise, Pope John Paul II in Crossing the Threshold of Hope (1994), wrote:

"Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Qur'an, but he is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the cross and the Resurrection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as a prophet who prepares for the last prophet, Mohammed. There is also mention of Mary, his Virgin Mother, but the tragedy of redemption is completely absent. For this reason not only the theology [doctrine of God] but also the anthropology [doctrine of man] of Islam is very distant from Christianity." (Emphasis added) See, pp. 92-93.

I would also note that Catholic apologists have addressed the premises raised in Turretinfan's rhetorical questions. For example, David Armstrong, a noted Catholic apologist, addresses the premises of the questions written by Turretinfan on his educational blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism here.

Thus, the underlying premise of TF’s rhetorical questions to Catholics is misleading and simply untrue. To restate: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT A PERSON CAN BE SAVED THROUGH ADHERENCE TO ISLAM.

With the above statements in mind, I, a follower of the proclamations of Vatican II, would simply answer TF’s rhetorical questions with an objection and trust that such an objection will be sustained by you the audience, acting as the trier of fact.

I ask Turretinfan as a brother in Christ to correct the false impression his questions give his audience in regards to what the Catholic Church teaches.

Asperges Me...Part One: Superstitions

"The spell lies in two words," replied Wamba--- "'Pax vobiscum' will answer all queries. If you go or come, eat or drink, bless or ban, 'Pax vobiscum' carries you through it all. It is as useful to a friar as a broomstick to a witch, or a wand to a conjurer. Speak it but thus, in a deep grave tone,---'Pax vobiscum!'---it is irresistible---Watch and ward, knight and squire, foot and horse, it acts as a charm upon them all. I think, if they bring me out to be hanged to-morrow, as is much to be doubted they may, I will try its weight upon the finisher of the sentence.

From Sir Walter Scott's Ivanhoe, Chapter 26.

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

May the Heavenly Father bless this work, and by it, for His honor, achieve much good for the salvation of souls. ~ Father Heinrich Theiler

I had indicated in an earlier post that I would offer a piece defending the presentation of Nick Hardesty aka PhatCatholic made in an debate between him and Turretinfan where the parties debated the following resolution:

RESOLVED: That the application of Holy Water is an effective means for stopping demonic forces.

When I first set out to write this paper, I thought it only necessary to put before the reader some biblical texts and several quotes from the works of the Early Church Fathers corroborating PhatCatholic's arguments pertaining to the efficacy and benefits of Holy Water and to refute Turretinfan’s argument that the practice of using Holy Water was merely a superstitious innovation of some nameless medieval monk. After all, while this Calvinist talking point is often raised in discussions involving the Catholic faith, it also one that can be easily refuted from the writings of St. Hippolytus, St. Serapion, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome and St. Augustine, all of whom lived much earlier than the Dark or Middle Ages. However, once I had done my research and sat down to actually write it, I soon realized that it would not be enough to address the matter in that manner. Hence, the long delay.

The problem is twofold. First, the resolution itself is not worded correctly. The Catholic Church has never taught that Holy Water IS an effective means for stopping demonic forces, only that it MAY BE efficacious. To be more precise, the Catholic Church has never taught that the use of any sacramental, such as Holy Water, will always produce the grace they signify ex opere operato. Rather, whatever efficacy to be derived from the use of a sacramental is due to the devotion of the user of the sacramental (ex opere operantis) or from the power and prayers of the Church itself (ex opere operantis ecclesia).

Thus, while Mr. Hardesty very adequately expressed how Holy Water has been efficacious throughout the history of the Church and demonstrated through Scripture how sacramentals were used in both the OT and NT, he faced the impossible task of attempting to affirm a resolution which the Catholic Church, itself, has never taught.

Since I believe that the underlying premise contained in the resolution is flawed, I will not attempt to defend the resolution as it is presently constituted. Rather, I will endeavor instead to show how Holy Water may be an effective means for stopping demonic forces.

Second, as the resolution was worded, Turretinfan was provided an opportunity to disparage the Catholic Church’s use of Holy Water (although in fairness to him, he did so in an irenic and courteous manner) by claiming that the practice is merely a superstitious medieval innovation:

“There is simply no mention of the practice of using holy water against demonic forces in either Scripture or the early fathers. It is a superstition based on the mistaken assumption that water consecrated by Catholic priests is “holy,” it is not. The concept of “holy water” is a medieval innovation. It is also based on the mistaken assumption that demons are repulsed or afraid of holy things. They are not. Satan even goes about disguised as an angel of light. They must, however, submit to the authority of God, which is why Michael invoked the Lord’s authority in his argument with the Devil (see Jude 9). Furthermore, we may have boldness against the devils, for we are promised that if we resist them, they will flee from us (see James 4:7). Thus, we need not be afraid, and resort to talismans or the like to protect us from the power of the devil.”

From the Conclusion from Turretinfan’s Opening Statement posted on January 5, 2008 found here.

And,

“American baseball players are notorious for their superstitions. Some always enter the batters box the same way, and some have a “lucky” way of digging in their spikes before each pitch. We can write these superstitious traditions off, because we know that it takes strength, speed, and a good eye to be a baseball great, not drinking exactly three ounces of water before warming up with two bats of the same weight. Even if we like the superstitions, we expect baseball managers to play the numbers, not rely on talismans.

In this debate we’re posed with something similar. PhatCatholic (PC) has attempted to defend a resolution that the application of Holy Water is an effective means for stopping demonic forces. It is a superstition (or, at a minimum, PC cannot establish otherwise), and we don’t have a valid basis for accepting it.”

From Turretinfan’s Conclusion to the Holy Water Debate posted January 25m 2008 found here.

Here, we see Turretinfan bandy the word “superstition” about like Wamba, the fool, in the Walter Scott novel, Ivanhoe bandied the phrase “pax vobiscum” about (See, Chapter 26). However, unlike the brave jester, Turretinfan used his “superstition” to close doors rather than to get them opened. By asserting that the use of Holy Water was merely a superstition, Turretinfan foreclosed Mr. Hardesty from presenting any anecdotal evidence in support of the proposition. It matters not whether St. Bede or any other saint used a sacramental to dispel demons-the practice is superstitious, or worse, pagan or demonic. It matters not that Mr. Hardesty could place before the reader the testimony of an army of exorcists or bring to the marketplace of ideas a whole array of miraculous events connected with Holy Water-they, too, would be dismissed as superstitious.

While such a tactic may be a great debate strategy, it is a poor theological one. After all, wasn’t the point of the debate to discuss the efficacy of Holy Water? By labeling the practice as “superstition,” Turretinfan played to his Protestant audience’s prejudice rather than address the argument head on; which is, “Does God use the physical things of this world as a means to impart His grace to us, His children, to help protect us from the Evil One and his minions?"

Turretinfan’s assertions that he understands the Catholic doctrine with respect with Holy Water notwithstanding, it was apparent to me that his understanding is based merely on a Protestant myth. The claim that practice of using Holy Water is no different than a person using carrying a lucky rabbit foot or a magic talisman, demonstrates actual ignorance of the Church’s teaching about sacramentals. However, Turretinfan can hardly be blamed for following one of the hoary old traditions of his Calvinist elders for it has been a long and venerable custom in certain Protestant apologetic and controversialist circles to label the devotional practices of Rome as a repackaging of the superstitious practices of pagans.

Here are some examples:

From the Rev. Rufus Wheelright Clark’s book, Romanism in America. Boston: J.E. Tilton, 1859 (found here) :

"In issuing the present work, a present want is met. From the beginning of its foothold, as the following pages will show, Rome has steadily advanced in the United States. Wily as ever, it in general adopts a more courteous policy than abroad; it appears meek and shorn of its hideousness ; but circumstances show that it only hides its aim. Occasionally a feeler is put forth, or an imprudent priest heedlessly reveals its purposes. Recent events in our own midst, where a single foreign priest has introduced anarchy into one of our public schools, and with characteristic impudence has endeavored to ride over the rights and laws of Americans, not only illustrates the spirit of Rome, but calls attention anew to this arch enemy of the Republic.

To summon again the spirit of national freedom, and to remind American citizens of the spirit and object of Roman tyranny and superstition these pages are now given to the public." (Preface)

Of course, what better way is there to show Rome’s tyranny and superstition than by making a diatribe against Holy Water:

"The use of holy water is also a pagan as well as Romish rite. In both systems it is regarded as possessing great efficacy. On entering a Romish church, you may observe a stone basin containing water, into which the faithful dip their fingers and cross themselves. The process by which the holy element is imparted to the water, and the uses to which it is applied, are supremely ridiculous. After being prepared by the priest, by making signs and breathing upon it, and casting into it a little fine powder, it is used for a great variety of purposes. It is sprinkled upon houses, furniture, horses, mules, dogs, and sheep ; upon the clothes of the living and the coffins of the dead. It is supposed to bless every thing that it touches. The ignorant and superstitious are taught to believe that this water purifies the atmosphere, heals diseases, drives away evil thoughts, gives strength to resist temptation, expels Satan and wicked spirits from the house, and secures the presence of the Holy Ghost.

In Rome, on a certain day, the horses and mules of the city and surrounding country are gayly decorated, and brought before the Church of St. Anthony, to be sprinkled with holy water by the priest. A small sum is paid to the priest for every animal that he sprinkles, and the people are made to believe that unless their animals are thus sprinkled, they will die during the year, or meet with some accident or great calamity. In order to keep up the delusion, the pope annually sends his horses to be sprinkled. Now, the common-sense spectator will naturally ask, Whence this silly and ridiculous custom? Where is the doctrine found that a little water sprinkled upon a beast will save his life and protect him from accident? Not in the Bible, certainly — not in the teachings of the primitive Christians. It is simply a heathen custom transferred from paganism to Romanism." (Pages 145-146)

The Rev. J.J. Smith in his book, The Impending Conflict between Romanism and Protestantism in the United States. New York: E. Goodenough, 1871 (which may be found here), likewise assaults Catholic doctrine by denigrating the use of Holy Water:

"And now the question arises, From whence did this silly practice [of using Holy Water] come? Surely not from the Bible. Not a single passage can be adduced from the word of God to support such a blasphemous ceremony. What then was its origin? The answer to this question is plain. It came from heathendom, the cesspool of religious abominations. It has no higher origin. It is a Pagan rite, that should have been left for only heathens to practice, instead of being incorporated among the rites of the Church to disgrace her service." (Pg. 190)

The same author goes on to say a little later:

"But what shall we say of Roman Catholics, who profess to be enlightened by the rays of divine truth, following so closely in the footsteps of ignorant and superstitious heathens, who are groping their way amid the darkness of idolatry? Romish priests, who ought to know better, and who ought to be heartily ashamed of this Pagan superstition, are found, by prayers and ceremonies, making holy water, for the ignorant, superstitious devotees of their faith, to carry to their homes, to be placed in their rooms, or under their pillows, and to sprinkle on their persons and about their dwellings for the purpose of protecting them from heathen influences, just as heathens do; but that they should sanction this Pagan rite by carrying it to the ridiculous extent of sprinkling the dead, is truly astonishing.

The heathens had their holy water because they had nothing better. They had by tradition received a knowledge of their defilement, and their consequent need of purification, and consequently, in their blindness, they applied to the creature instead of the Creator. As water was the great purifier for physical impurities, it was readily conceived that by the infusion of a supernatural quality through the ceremony, and prayer of consecration by a priest or some divinity, it then would cleanse the soul.

This idea has been well nigh universal in heathen lands. We meet with it in ancient Egypt. They had their sacred Nile, which was regarded with the same superstitious reverence by them as the Ganges was by the Hindoos. This was what made the plague by which the waters of the Nile were turned to blood so great a calamity to Pharaoh and his people. The Thibetians, in their worship of the Grand Lama, have among their rites the use of holy water prepared and used very much as in Hindostan. Mahomet, who, in forming a new system of religion, drew largely on Paganism for materials, did not forget their holy water. Accordingly the waters of the well Zem Zem were consecrated to religious purposes, which it is affirmed are not only efficacious for curing many bodily diseases, but also for healing all spiritual disorders, and even procuring an absolute remission of sins. This water is conveyed by pilgrims in bottles to all parts of the Mahomedan dominions, to protect them against all manner of evil.

Now, can any one fail to see from whence Rome obtained her idea of holy water, and her teachings respecting its efficacy to heal diseases, expel devils, and cleanse the soul ? It must certainly be admitted that she has not only borrowed this nonsensical practice from Paganism, but that she has, in this respect, followed remarkably close in its footsteps. She has, to a great extent, substituted holy water in the place of the Holy Ghost.

The Bible, which so expressly and pointedly condemns the whole system of image worship as held by Rome, and which must ever in its teachings oppose the use of holy water, or any other Pagan rite that would in any measure usurp the prerogatives of the Holy Ghost, can never be held by Romanists in the high estimation it deserves. Hence her opposition to the Bible." (Pgs. 192-195)

Now lest the reader believes that this phenomenon was a 19th century affectation:

"The use of holy water is purely pagan; and the pagan aspersorium is exactly the same kind of vessel as the Catholic churches use; and it occupies, in the Catholic Church, the same position which it occupied in the pagan temple. Do you happen to know how the Catholic priest makes holy water ? It is enough to make a sane man wonder whether he is dreaming or not, when he sees so many intelligent men and women pretending to believe in this monstrous superstition of holy water.

The priest bends over the vessel which contains the water, mutters some cabalistic words (in Latin, of course), traces the sign of the cross with his finger on the face of the water, three times, puts his lips to it, saying : "Receive thou the Holy Spirit" — making it "blubber" with his breath — makes other motions with his hands over it, pours oil into it, in the form of a cross; also another liquid, in the same form: then holding both vessels in his right hand, he pours the uniting liquids into the tub, in the same cross-like form; sprinkles a white powder into it, and in the end, pronounces it holy, after having washed his hands in it." (Emphasis added)

From, Watson, Thomas E. The Roman Catholic Hierarchy: The Deadliest Menace to American Liberties and Christian Civilization. Thomson, Ga: Jeffersonian Pub. Co, 1915, pg. 61. Also found at Google Books here.

And of course how can one leave out the inimitable Loraine Boettner who offers these heady insights in his book, Roman Catholicism:

"There are certain benefits, however, which in a way seem to accrue to the Roman Church as it conducts its ceremonials under the veil of a dead language. Most importantly, it adds to the air of mystery that surrounds its service, and helps set the priest apart from the people as a man with special wisdom and special powers. Every priest at times has to bless the “holy water” with which Roman Catholics sprinkle themselves, and which is sprinkled on various objects to purify and consecrate them. The prayer by which it is done intimates that its object really is drive out devils out of this common water, and indirectly keep them from the people who are sprinkled. Probably not one priest in a hundred really believes that, and it doubtless would seem rather crude and awkward to go through the ritual in English. But they do not seem to mind doing it in Latin." (Pg. 277) (Emphasis added)

And later,

"Fraud is practiced in the Roman Church, not only in exhibiting relics of the saints, but also in attributing supernatural powers to them. ... Many priests have little or no faith at all in relics, even though it is part of their work to recommend them and to supervise their use by the pious faithful. Priests who have been to Rome for any length of time lose any reverence they may had for such things when they see the shameless traffic that is carried on in that city in bits of bones and pious objects of all kinds. ... The amazing thing about this whole business is that presumably intelligent and educated Roman Catholics, clerical and lay alike, even in an enlightened country such as the United States, either tacitly accept such relics as genuine or fail to denounce them for the gross superstition that they know them to be.

Closely akin to the subject of relics is that of “Holy Water,” so-called, which is nothing more than ordinary water with a pinch of salt added and blessed by a priest. A holy water font is found just inside the entrance of every Roman Catholic church. That is another empty superstition from the Dark Ages, borrowed from paganism, and introduced into the church in the ninth century. Pagan temples in Rome had holy water stoups or basins long before they were introduced in the Christian churches, and all of those entering were expected to sprinkle themselves." (Pg. 292) (Emphasis added)

Quotes taken from, Boettner, Loraine. Roman Catholicism. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973.

Now by making the charge of superstition, none of these gentlemen had to actually address the theology behind sacramentals. After all, why let the facts get in the way of good ghost story, even when that ghost happens to be the Holy Ghost. Unfortunately, the charge of superstition is just that, a charge. As a jury is instructed in a court of law, an indictment is not proof. It is merely a claim that must be proved by at least the requisite weight of evidence.

G.K. Chesterton addressed this Protestant tactic of labeling Catholic doctrines as superstitions in an essay titled The Protestant Superstitions, which was published in his book, titled, The Thing (found here):

“It is hardly a final refutation of Spiritualists to prove that they believe in Spirits; any more than a refutation of Deists to prove that they believe in Deity. Creed and credence and credulity are words of the same origin and can be juggled backwards and forwards to any extent. But when a man assumes the absurdity of anything that anybody else believes, we wish first to know what he believes; on what principle he believes; and, above all, upon what principle he disbelieves.” (Emphasis added)

Mr. Chesterton goes on to say:

“But why a man should accept a Creator who was a carpenter, and then worry about holy water, why he should accept a local Protestant tradition that God was born in some particular place mentioned in the Bible, merely because the Bible had been left lying about in England, and then say it is incredible that a blessing should linger on the bones of a saint, why he should accept the first and most stupendous part of the story of Heaven on Earth, and then furiously deny a few small but obvious deductions from it-- that is a thing I do not understand; I never could understand; I have come to the conclusion that I shall never understand. I can only attribute it to Superstition.” Ibid.

I submit, dear reader, that it is the notion of Holy Water that Turretinfan presented in his debate with Mr. Hardesty that is superstitious, and not the Catholic practice itself. Now that I have made the charge, I will attempt to follow Mr. Chesterton’s advice and lay before you why I believe so. To do so, I will need to first lay a foundation by discussing the Catholic belief in sacramentalism in the next installment.

God Bless!