This is part of a continuing series where I investigate the claims made by a pamphlet that was left for me asserting that Catholicism is not Christian.  You can read the pamphlet in it’s entirety here: (page 1 and page 2).  Today we’ll be discussing the short section on page 2 entitled “Traditions”.

What is Tradition based on?

This section opens with a statement that Catholic Tradition is founded on documented forged by their leaders.  As we previously discussed, the Catholic Church was founded by Christ and not Constantine which covers the ‘Donations of Constantine’ assertion.  The author also mentions the Isodorian Decretals, which were a set of 9th century documents attempting to justify the position of bishops by supporting them with false documents purportedly authored by early popes.  I have not studied these documents extensively myself, but I have found several sources that affirm that these documents are forgeries and that no serious theologian has asserted otherwise since the 19th century.

The important thing that I notice is that these documents were created in the 9th century, which essentially means that the Catholic Church had been practicing it’s faith for around 800 years.  Traditions in practice by this time were many generations old, and therefore could not have been founded on the back of this set of forged documents.

Sacred Tradition is the practice of the faith that has been transmitted by word or practice and not by writing.  This is alluded to in John 20:30-31:

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

And John 21:25:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

The Apostles traveled with Jesus, they lived with Jesus, and they witnessed these other signs.  It stands to reason that in being taught directly from Christ, the Apostles would themselves transmit these teachings and practices to others.  Christ Himself is the foundation upon which Sacred Tradition is built.  Further, there is plenty of valid evidence that illustrates that the early Church Fathers held to some of the same traditions and practices that we conform to today.  For more information on this, I highly suggest Jimmy Akin‘s book “The Fathers Know Best“.

Misunderstanding Mark

The pamphlet continues to quote Mark 7:7 as evidence that Tradition is bad:

But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

This is a simple matter of cherry-picking Scripture and why it is dangerous.  Christ was speaking with the Pharisees about their practice of hand-washing before meals, and his admonishment was directed at them for this practice.  The line to be drawn is clear: there is a marked difference between traditions that take man away from God’s Commandments (in fact, the rest of Christ’s discussion on this matter drives forward that point) and those that Sacred Tradition transmitted by Christ to his Apostles.

The author cites examples of things that the church has changed or removed: fish on Friday got removed (actually, it’s still there), Saint Christopher (he’s still there too), and the acceptance of mixed marriages (it is allowed, but still discouraged).  These are good examples of Church doctrines that can evolve.  It is the job of the Magesterium to instruct regarding such things, in order to ensure that these practices lead people further in their spiritual life.

I do think that the author of the pamphlet does make an accidental point, however.  The point of Sacred Tradition is that it further allows us to relate to Christ and worship him.  Tradition itself is there to support and underscore the teachings of Christ, not to change or override it.

Infallible Teachings

The author again makes an error in associating the infallible teachings of the Church with the practice of the doctrines listed above.  Any teaching declared infallible means that it has been revealed to us by God.  The examples given of transubstantiation, purgatory, Mary’s immaculate conception, and papal infallibility are not of the same pedigree as the dietary practices or veneration guidelines presented above.

Each of these examples can be traced back to what God has revealed to us, and in each case there is biblical and traditional evidence to support each of these teachings.  There is ample evidence to support that these practices have been present throughout the transmission of Catholicism, but simply were just not specifically defined until a later time.  I will cover each of these in some detail in coming weeks and months, in order to give each topic the appropriate focus that it deserves.

This is part of a continuing series where I investigate the claims made by a pamphlet that was left for me asserting that Catholicism is not Christian.  You can read the pamphlet in it’s entirety here: (page 1 and page 2).  Today we’ll be discussing the densely-packed and wide ranging section on page 2 entitled simply “Church”.

Stumbling out of the gate

This section begins with a few bruised assertions.  First, it claims that Constantine established the ‘Roman’ church in 325 AD.  This is a popular (and somewhat recent) attempt to tie the ‘creation’ of Catholicism to Constantine, but it’s just not true.  Constantine did convert and made it legal to practice Christianity with the Edict of Milan.  We’ll give the author of the pamphlet a free pass on the statements about Martin Luther, because there’s plenty more here to cover.

The following assertion that ‘True Christians trace their roots directly to Christ through the Waldenses and Ana-Baptists’ is a very confusing one.  I am no expert on either group, however some research on Wikipedia yields the fact that the Waldenses was a movement that began around 1170 in France and the Ana-Baptists were later into the 16th century.  I tried to find out more by following the quoted website, but it took me to a public library website from Illinois that did not seem to hold any relevance.

All founding aside, I simply assert that the most sure way to follow Christ is to belong to the Church that He founded.  The Catholic Church holds an unbroken line of papal succession directly back to Saint Peter, who was given his authority directly from Jesus Christ.  That places Jesus Christ as the founder of the Catholic Church, not Constantine for those of you keeping score.

This argument often spins off in one of two directions: people advocating for the authority of their own sect, and those that begin to attack the authenticity of papal succession.  Countless gallons of ink (both real and digital) have been spilled about each of these topics and I can’t do them justice here.   I often direct those that attack the line of papal succession to a very well-presented Wikipedia entry on the popes.  It is not a tome, you don’t need to spend hours understanding it, just scroll and follow the dates.

Unfortunately, further discussion is often required for those that want to advocate for their own special brand of authority.  To have an enriching discussion about this, I must first understand their argument and there’s not much I can do in this venue regarding that topic.

The Inquisitions

Next, the author attributes the murder of millions of these ‘true Christians’ to the Roman Catholic Church during the Inquisitions.  The Church has a long history of addressing heresy in all of it’s forms, and in many cases this would be practiced in the form of a local inquisitional court.  There is a very well-written article at Catholic.com that provides a primer regarding the Inquisition, and a much deeper historical dive over at the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Here are a few relevant segments from the Catholic.com article:

What “crimes” were tried in courts of inquisition? 
Sixteenth-century Protestant reformers propagandized that inquisition courts were historically aimed at simple, Bible-believing Christians. For the most part, however, those prosecuted in the courts of the inquisition were not people with any organized theology of religious dissent. For the most part, they were the ignorant, the troublemakers, the braggarts and, all-too-often, the drunkards belching out foolishness when under the influence.

Much like any court today, the inquisition courts often functioned as a form of social control, aimed at those who publicly lived in a way contrary to accepted norms. In most countries, those on trial rarely were advocates of a contradictory or heretical theological system of beliefs. Fornication, adultery, refusal to attend the Sacraments, and disregard of common devotional practices were the common practices investigated by the inquisition courts. In fact, in many inquisition courts a major focus was on clergy living dissolute lifestyles, rather than laity.

Did medieval inquisition courts employ torture? 
Common to judicial practice going back to Roman times, torture was used at times to obtain proof of accusations. But, again, the goal was not conviction of heretics but the salvation of their souls. Very often, the general laity simply wanted the heretic destroyed, while secular authorities wanted to punish. The courts of the inquisition hoped to bring the heretic back into the fold, and guidelines were strict against using torture as punishment. Numerous works of popular art notwithstanding, no priest or religious was allowed to take an active role in torture.

Although no such action can be justified today, it is important to note that the courts of the medieval inquisition were actually modifying and limiting a practice common to secular judicial proceedings of the time. The use of torture in inquisition courts was much less extensive, and far less violent, than the norms of secular courts.

One additional interesting fact: the oft-cited papal bull by Pope Innocent III that called for a ‘crusade’ also stressed confession, education, and many other methods aimed at bringing heretical people back to the fold.  To be clear: the actions taken (deterioration to violence, harsh punishment handed down by secular courts based on the inquisition trials) are lamentable, but they are an undeniable part of history.  I believe it is very important to get beyond the caricature and actually examine what happened, and the aforementioned tracts and articles provide a solid place to start that helps to illuminate those dark times.

Topped off with vitriol

As if this densely packed two paragraphs can’t get any better, the author tops off this section with a healthy dose of venom.  The pamphlet states “The RCC says all their homosexual priests are ‘representatives of Christ'” and then continues to make further claims that priests are diseased perverts that molest children and spread AIDS.

This particular argument offends me greatly, because it misses one of the most important things about the Catholic Church: it is comprised of human sinners.  Pointing out the public failings of priests as some sort of special example that invalidates the cause of the Church is a flawed premise.  Painting stereotypes using broad brushes would not be acceptable for any other race, sexual orientation, religion, or affinity group… so why is it acceptable to do this to the Catholic priesthood?  This practice slanders the vast majority of priests who are dedicated, chaste, holy men.

First, not all priests are homosexual.  Secondly, the Church teaches that all priests (including those with same-sex attraction) act in the person of Christ when administering the Church’s sacramental rites.  Further, the Catechism of the Catholic Church section 1584 teaches:

Since it is ultimately Christ who acts and effects salvation through the ordained minister, the unworthiness of the latter does not prevent Christ from acting.  St. Augustine states this forcefully:

As for the proud minister, he is to be ranked with the devil. Christ’s gift is not thereby profaned: what flows through him keeps its purity, and what passes through him remains dear and reaches the fertile earth. . . . The spiritual power of the sacrament is indeed comparable to light: those to be enlightened receive it in its purity, and if it should pass through defiled beings, it is not itself defiled.

It is Christ that is acting to administer the sacraments.  Despite the graces received by the sacrament of Holy Orders, priests must also suffer temptation and sometimes fall to sin.  They are not perfect like Christ, they are the vessels through which Christ operates.  Do we expect them to keep a higher standard than the rest of the world?  Absolutely, but I don’t expect them to be perfect and in some cases they may fall into grave sin like any of the rest of us.  Pope Francis even went so far as to call himself a sinner in a recent interview, much to the shocked gasps of the secular world.

This pamphlet repeats the ‘homosexual priests’ trope often, but why focus there?  If we’re going scandal hunting, why don’t we mention any of the numerous other scandals in the Church’s history?  How about the Church’s relationship with the Borgia family, who was associated with several popes and suspected of a long list of  crimes such as murder, simony, bribery, and theft?  Surely there is equally verdant ground for this argument beyond the pelvic issues that go on to reinforce my point: no one is free from sin, no matter their ecclesiastical role or station.  To focus on an individual type of sin in an effort to discredit the Church or her priesthood is a crass and invalid argument.

We’ll be revisiting this pamphlet more often in the coming weeks, so stay tuned for more.