Ipse Dixit: Just Because You Say it Doesn’t Make it So

But to return to the matter in hand! If your papist wants to make so much fuss about the word sola (alone) tell him this, “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and says that a papist and a jackass are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic jubeo; sit pro ratione voluntas. [Luther is quoting Juvenal here. The phrase means “thus I wish, thus I order, my will stands in place of reason.”] We are not going to be the pupils and disciples of the papists, but their masters and judges.

—Martin Luther, On Translating: An Open Letter (1530) [#]

The Protestant Reformers of the 16th century and the current Catholics attacking the authority of the Church today have vastly contradictory ideas on what the Church should look like. But, in terms of tactics and response to correction, they’re virtually identical. Both believe that the Church went beyond having corruption and sin in it and actually fell into teaching error. Both insist that their interpretation of Scripture and Church documents are accurate, and both believe that any attempt at correction is proof of the error. In fact both seem unable to discern the difference between their interpretation of Scripture and Church teaching and the actual texts, applying text against us when their applicability is what is under dispute.

The result of this is a mindset that makes the Reformers and critics into the judge and jury of their disputes. They insist their views of the Church are right, they insist their interpretation of the Scriptures and Church documents are right, and any who say otherwise show they are in error by the fact that they disagree.

However, we must disagree all the same because making these claims are not the same thing as proofs. They are simply bare assertions and we do not have to accept bare assertions. We must (if we’re wise) insist on their showing either their evidence for the claim or their authority to teach in a binding manner. If the person replies with a bare assertion and/or an insult, we have a right to be dubious.

Catholics profess that the Church established by Christ, which Scripture tells us about, was the Catholic Church, under the headship of St. Peter and his successors. This is testified to by history and the writing of the Church Fathers. Not just in the West, but in the East too:

And why, having passed by the others, doth He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, “If thou lovest Me, preside over thy brethren, and the warm love which thou didst ever manifest, and in which thou didst rejoice, show thou now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldest lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.”

—St. John Chrysostom, Homily on John LXXXVIII

As a result, whoever wants to argue that the Church has taught error has to prove it. If they want to teach by authority, they have to demonstrate that they have the authority to teach in a binding manner. Just because you think the Church erred doesn’t mean she did, or that it means she lost her mandate, or that it gets passed on to you. So, simply asserting that “the Church is wrong,” doesn’t make it so.

So, if someone wants to argue there is a break in Church teaching, where something was taught in contradiction to the Church teaching today, they need to demonstrate that it is so, and that their understanding of both past and present teaching is correct in doing so.

For example, certain critics of the Church today argue that St. Pius V taught that the Mass of 1570 was established infallibly and forbade any change. Therefore, they argue that the Mass of 1970 was invalid and heretical because St. Paul VI implemented a changed Mass. But the part of Quo Primum that they cite [§] refers to forbidding any person other than the Pope from changing or overruling the implementation of the 1570 missal.

But the Missal was changed. Changes were made by Popes in 1604, 1634, 1884, 1920 (many changes to the rubrics). Then Ven. Pius XII (1951 and 1955) made changes that required changes to canon law, permitted some use of the vernacular, and completely revised Holy Week. Finally, it was revised in 1962. So, before 1970, the Missal of St. Pius V had been substantially changed—and none of the Popes involved believed they were violating Church teaching in modifying the Missal. It’s evidence that this interpretation of Quo Primum by critics is not proof, but merely another ipse dixit claim. Their rebellion against the Church and rejection of the Ordinary Form of the Mass is founded on a baseless assertion.

This is pretty much how it goes in every attack on The Church (as opposed to individual sinners or regions falling into error). The condemnation of the Church is based on the personal interpretation of Scripture and Church documents over the teaching of the Church while refusing to consider the possibility of their own error. But that’s how the heresies of history formed. The ancient heresiarchs interpreted Scripture in a way contrary to the understanding of the teachings of the Apostles from the beginning. I don’t doubt that they were sincere and thought they were helping the Church. But they did not have the authority to teach and they did not prove that the Church deviated from the teaching the Apostles passed on from Our Lord.

The modern anti-Vatican II or anti-Francis Catholic is no different. They draw conclusions at odds with Church teaching, rejecting the authority of the Church and making ipse dixit statements, treating them as “proof” that the Church remains in “error” until it acts the way they imagine was a golden age in the Church.

These things should always be rejected.

____________

[#] As a standard disclaimer for my non-Catholic readers, I don’t write this article to attack non-Catholics today and respect and try to follow the Church on Ecumenical issues. I cite the 16th century Reformers as a “You are the man” (2 Samuel 12:7) moment by showing that the super Catholics at odds with the Church are behaving in the same manner as the 16th century Reformers that they hate. 

[§] “We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription – except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing.”

False Accusations revisited

Parvus error in principiis, magnus error in conclusionibus (Small error in the beginning leads to great error in the conclusion). It’s a maxim that means that if you start with errors in your assumptions, your conclusion will build on those false assumptions and wind up with an even greater one [§]. So, when we set out to prove something, it’s vital to make sure that our assumptions and research are correct.

This is especially true if you’re planning to accuse a person or group. We might think something is an error. But before we argue that it is in error, we need to investigate whether our understanding about the thing is true. If it isn’t, our opposition might be what’s really in error.

I think of this when I come across anti-Catholic attacks. In attempting to show why they are right in their beliefs, they start by attacking our “errors.” The problem is, Catholics don’t believe what they accuse us of. So, if they justify breaking with the Catholic Church on grounds of the Church teaching error [#], but the errors they allege we teach are things we don’t we actually reject then their break remains unjustified. So when Calvin alleges we worship idols, when some Orthodox allege Catholics think we “earn” our way out of Purgatory by our suffering (The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church, Question 66) [*], when Luther alleges (Commentary On Galatians, Chapter 5 v. 15) [+] that we believe we can earn salvation, these things are simply false. The Catholic Church does not and never had believed these things.

Whether Calvin, Peter Mogila (the author of the Orthodox Confession) and Luther were badly taught on these matters, whether they badly misunderstood the correct teachings, or whether they were barefaced liars (I leave it to God to judge), they used false statements to justify rejection of the Catholic Church and encourage others to do the same. Not only at the time of writing, but in the present time where modern anti-Catholics assume they had accurate knowledge of Church teaching. [%].

Of course, we must follow Our Lord’s teaching in Luke 6:31. “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” If we would have others speak truthfully about us, we must speak truthfully about others. That means if we want to speak about another’s errors, we must be sure we have properly understood their statements as they intended it to be understood. Whether we speak or write about others, inside or outside of the Church, we have the obligation to make sure we speak accurately about what they really said and did.

Sadly, that isn’t the case. There is a (probably informal) movement that is aimed at opposing what they think is error in the Church. They take “Who am I to judge” to be approval of homosexuality. They take “rabbit Catholics” to mean opposition to large families. They take his words on the permissive will of God to be something approved of by God. From here they use their false interpretation (whatever the culpability might be) to attack the Pope, some having gone so far as to formally accuse him of heresy and urge the bishops to take action.

But these are false accusations, even if the anti-Francis Catholics believe them. We have an obligation to understand a person correctly before accusing him if we are to avoid rash judgment (you’ll notice that, while I pointed out that reformers, anti-Catholics, and anti-Francis Catholics spoke falsely—which can be established by comparing what they wrote with what the Church wrote—I never accused them of lying. That would require knowledge of their heart and mind that only God knows).

Whoever you are, whatever you do (I’m looking at our politicians and media here), whatever you profess to believe, you have an obligation to speak accurately when making an accusation, not assuming that what we hear or what we think it means is what our opponent holds.

_____________________

[§] In logic, if one or both premises are false and/or the logical form is invalid, the conclusion is unproven. It might be correct by sheer coincidence, but the person didn’t prove his point.

[#] We need to distinguish between what the Church teaches and what an individual Catholic might believe—contrary to the teachings of the Church. If one assumes that the error of one is the error of the whole Church, that’s the fallacy of composition.

[*] This catechism reads in part: “Our Church doth not admit or approve of such Fables as some Men have fancied concerning the State of Souls after Death; as that they are tormented in Pits and Waters, and with sharp Prongs, when they are snatched away by Death before they can have done sufficient Penance for their Faults.” To which Catholics can say, “we don’t believe that either.

[+] “This we see also in the Papacy, where the doctrine of faith being cast aside, it was impossible that concord of spirit should remain, and in the stead thereof there arose through the doctrine of works innumerable sects of monks, which being at variance with one another, did measure their holiness by the straitness of their orders and the difficulty of their superstitious works which they had themselves devised.” To which Catholics can say “Luther knew less than he thought about the Catholic Faith.”

[%] That doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church teaches the Protestant position of course. Rejecting A does not mean accepting B.

Do We Act as We Believe? The Double Standard Trap

Read more »

They Who Speak Falsely

Read more »

Thoughts on America’s Vile Institution

Read more »

Church Teaching vs. Political Views

One potential problem—as I have mentioned before—Catholics face is the temptation to think of certain concerns as political opinions while elevating their political opinions to Catholic teaching. The result of this is when the Church speaks out against things an individual Catholic thinks is political, the individual believes that the Church is “losing sight” of her mission, getting involved in politics. But, when the Church speaks against a political stance at odds with Church teaching and the individual Catholic thinks the stance is Catholic teaching, that individual accuses the Church of falling into “error.”

So, when the Church speaks about environmental responsibility and the individual Catholic thinks “environmentalism” is a political issue, he or she says the Church should focus on “more important” issues instead. This doesn’t go only one direction though. Catholics with different slants might think that abortion and transgenderism are “political” issues the Church should stay away from. Regardless of political slant, these individuals say the Church is “obsessed” with “minor” things and should focus on “more important” issues... which they happen to support.

The other side of the problem is the elevating of political views to doctrine. The individual usually draws a political stance based on their interpretation of a Church teaching. From there they conclude that rejecting the stance is a rejection of Church teaching. For example, the Church has condemned socialism [§]. From that, some have concluded that laissez-faire capitalism is compatible with Catholic teaching so the Pope warning against its excesses and injustices is seen as “changing Church teachings.” Alternately, some Catholics draw on the Church teaching on caring for the poor and reason that opposing government programs and taxes to fund them must be a rejection of Church teaching.

Both of these assumptions are “doctrinizing” political views. Yes, the Church requires us to do or avoid certain things. But she doesn’t require us to endorse specific political positions in doing so—provided they don’t use that argument to evade Catholic teaching. Yes, Catholics can disagree on the best means to oppose abortion or make society more just. But they cannot use that as an excuse to downplay or ignore the injustice [#]. The Catholic who uses this to avoid their moral obligation altogether does wrong. Remember what Our Lord had to say on the subject (quoting Isaiah):

Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you when he said: 

“This people honors me with their lips, 

but their hearts are far from me; 

in vain do they worship me, 

teaching as doctrines human precepts.’ ” (Matthew 15:7–9)

We need to remember that where the Church binds, we have no authority to loose. Where the Church looses, we have no authority to bind. When the Church teaches, we have an obligation to obey. If we let our political opinions interfere with listening to the Church, the rebuke of Our Lord and Isaiah falls on us.

_________________________

[§] To avoid the fallacy of false analogy, we do need to be aware of the forms of socialism condemned and not automatically assume that the similarities an individual Catholic thinks he sees are the same thing.

[#] For example, the person who ignores or supports abortion and claims that they’re more pro-life because of their support on other issues. See Christfideles Laici #38.

Limiting the Voice of the Church

I was reading a back issue of First Things the other day and came across a curious claim by the author of the essay. This claim was that the Church ought not to speak on every issue that comes along, but should instead limit herself to speaking about crucial issues (such as sexual morality and abortion).

The reason I found this curious was the issues the author thought the Church should hold back on were also issues that the Church has always spoken about: the obligation to aid the poor. It made me reflect though. Catholics have fallen far when they reduce part of the Church teaching (the part at odds with their politics) to “political opinions.”

The teaching of Pope Francis and the bishops today on care for the homeless, the migrant is no different from his predecessors. Rather we overlook the fact that his predecessors spoke on these topics just like we forget that Pope Francis speaks on the moral issues. For example, St. John Paul II said in a June 2, 2000 homily:

Unfortunately, we still encounter in the world a closed-minded attitude and even one of rejection, due to unjustified fears and concern for one’s own interests alone. These forms of discrimination are incompatible with belonging to Christ and to the Church. Indeed, the Christian community is called to spread in the world the leaven of brotherhood, of that fellowship of differences which we can also experience at our meeting today.

If the Pope said this today, we’d have people accusing him of speaking out against today”s American policy in the Middle East or Mexico with people cheering or denouncing him. But he was speaking at a jubilee of migrant and immigrant peoples almost 20 years ago, when our political landscape was different. But with almost 20 years separating the two Popes, the concern of the Church is the same: self-interest and fear is leading Christians to avoid the Christian need to care for those in need. When we say “the Pope should stay out of politics,” we are effectively trying to silence the Church from speaking out on our moral obligation.

It goes the other way too. When the Church speaks out on sexual morality and the right to life, we hear others saying they’re political (or, my personal eyeroll favorite, “getting played” by politicians) even though the Church has always spoken on these things. Just like certain Catholics ignored or accused St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI of being political when they spoke out on social justice, other Catholics ignore Pope Francis when he condemns abortion, same sex “marriage,” and “gender theory.” Thus, the Popes we like are earnest and the ones we dislike are “political.”

But none of these Popes are “being political.” They’re speaking on issues that can affect our souls. Trying to silence the Popes from “being political” is actually trying to silence the Popes from saying what we need—but don’t want—to hear.