A Quote from St. John Chrysostom, a Lying Tongue, and the MHFM
“There are six things that the LORD strongly dislikes, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.” - Proverbs 6:16-19
The Greek tragic dramatis Aeschylus (525-456 BC) sums it up well when he said:
"In war, truth is the first casualty."
When scrutinizing the post conciliar Roman Catholic Church, since the Second Vatican Council’s (1962-1965), one can arguably and understandably draw the conclusion that as a result of that tragic break from tradition the Church has become severely fragmented into various factions; some calling themselves traditionalists, sedevacantists, conclavists, etcetera; who in a sense have declared non-violent, open and holy war against the Church in Rome. It is blatantly apparent that the most favored “weapon of choice” used in this ongoing battle of over 50+ years is “a sharp tongue”; along with an even sharper pen to write those words down and disseminate them through various mediums to the public.
Freedom of Speech does not and was never meant to be interpreted as giving one “Free License” to say whatever comes into their mind and spills off their tongue. No matter how strongly a person may feel concerning an issue (religious or otherwise); nowhere is it found in the bible or the teachings of the Church that God has somewhere authorized / granted us the right to twist, spin and/or distort the “truth” in order to defend a position through the use of deceit.
Among other things, we as Catholics are called upon and instructed to read, follow and obey the 10 Commandments as stipulated in Exodus 20.
The focus I would ask you to apply here and now is on the commandment found in Exodus 20:16 (Douay-Rheims Bible):
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”.
In short … “Freedom of Speech / Freedom of Expression” does not override God’s law against bearing false witness; which includes and prohibits detraction (true faults), calumny (false faults), gossip, rash judgment, lying, and the violation of secrets.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (§2469) states, "...The virtue of truth gives another his just due. Truthfulness keeps to the just mean between what ought to be expressed and what ought to be kept secret: it entails honesty and discretion. In justice, "as a matter of honor, one man owes it to another to manifest the truth."
It is hardly censorship to demand both spiritual and intellectual honesty / forthrightness in our attempts to justify our positions and spread the Gospel. “Truth” must never be sacrificed by our passion and emotions to persuade others to accept our beliefs.
It is because of the seriousness of ensuring that the proper and exact dissemination of the “truth” is upheld that the Church established laws requiring that “canonical provision” be obtained by any and all religious orders, associations and initiatives as formal proof of their legitimacy, authenticity and certified ability to credibly profess the “truth” associated with Catholicism and its “Deposit of Faith”.
Deposit of Faith = Apostolic Tradition (or Sacred Oral Tradition) + Sacred Scriptures.
The role of the local diocesan bishop in this process of reviewing all requests from any layman or group of lay persons for establishing new religious orders, associations and initiatives is not only rational but it is essential; as the local diocesan bishop is mandated by the Church to oversee and protect the spiritual well-being of all Catholics living within his assigned region. He is equally obliged to ensure that the Church’s official beliefs, practices and teaching are not publicly distorted or misrepresented by such individuals or groups.
Is it so hard to fathom, to understand, that sincere, well-meaning Catholic lay persons who may honestly wish to support the interests of the Catholic Church, or promote social justice in the secular arena in the name of Catholicism is, simply put, NOT good enough. While their intentions may be laudable in themselves and are certainly not prohibited, such persons, unless receiving “canonical provision”, have not been commissioned and therefore do not have the authority to speak for the Church.
Without the appropriate and competent oversight by those holding the authority to “teach”; the risk of laymen intentionally or unintentionally promoting and propagating erroneous information increases greatly; to the detriment of the Church, as a whole, and this cannot and should not be tolerated.
And here is but one example as to why …
An example of a flagrant “misrepresentation” and “erroneous” position promoted by the laymen of the MHFM concerns the selective text taken from St. John Chrysostom’s “Homily 25 on the Gospel of St. John, 3”.
Peter Dimond attempted, in his book (Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation - page 21), to defend the MHFM position against the Baptism of Desire.
In so doing he intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented the statements of St. John Chrysostom, by writing:
“
For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King; the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated [unbaptized], though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble.”
The text above taken, as is, from the MHFM’s book could very well lead a “novice” lay person, who trusted the Dimond Brothers, into misconstruing and forming the erroneous belief that St. John Chrysostom actually stated that a “catechumen” (i.e. a learner, a person being instructed preparatory to receiving baptism and being admitted into the Church) who dies before reaching the waters of baptism; even if they possessed ten thousand virtues, is categorically condemned to the eternal fires of Hell. And this is simply NOT the case.
The reality of the situation is that Peter Dimond is guilty of bearing false witness against St. John Chrysostom; which is a serious offence.
If one will but take the time to read St. Chrysostom’s text in full he or she should quickly understand that this Holy Father of the Church, this Saint, was actually emphasizing the need for qualified catechumens not to delay in receiving the sacrament of Baptism once they were converted.
St. Chrysostom was chastising those catechumens who hesitated to become baptized and a member of Christ’s Church without having any valid reason whatsoever.
He was well aware that during this time those professing to be Christians could be subjected to immense persecution and were therefore hesitant.
Yet, he also understood that there also existed catechumens who were "spiritually weak" and enticed by vice and sin and did NOT wish to give those practices up until "they felt" it was absolutely necessary.
He was admonishing those who held on to that erroneous belief of the futility of deferring receiving the sacrament of Baptism; as those who have been instructed and qualify for baptism, and needlessly delay, and die before becoming a baptized member of Christ’s Church will NOT be saved.
The actual text written by St. John Chrysostom in Homily 25:3 is as follows:
“Let us then who have been deemed worthy of such mysteries show forth a life worthy of the Gift, that is, a most excellent conversation; and do ye who have not yet been deemed worthy, do all things that you may be so, that we may be one body, that we may be brethren. For as long as we are divided in this respect, though a man be father, or son, or brother, or anything else, he is no true kinsman, as being cut off from that relationship which is from above."
"What advantages it to be bound by the ties of earthly family, if we are not joined by those of the spiritual? What profits nearness of kin on earth, if we are to be strangers in heaven? For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful. He has not the same Head, he has not the same Father, he has not the same City, nor Food, nor Raiment, nor Table, nor House, but all are different; all are on earth to the former, to the latter all are in heaven."
"One has Christ for his King; the other, sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes; one has worms' work for his raiment, the other the Lord of angels; heaven is the city of one, earth of the other. Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me, shall we hold communion? Did we remove the same pangs, did we come forth from the same womb? This has nothing to do with that most perfect relationship."
"Let us then give diligence that we may become citizens of the city which is above. How long do we tarry over the border, when we ought to reclaim our ancient country? We risk no common danger; for if it should come to pass, (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be no other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble. But God grant that none of those who hear these words experience that punishment!”
What the Dimond Brothers published is either an intentional or unintentional falsehood … but without a doubt … it is a lie that needs to be rectified. St. John Chrysostom NEVER denied the Baptism of Desire no matter what Peter Dimond falsely claims.
The example above gives further credence and support to the Church’s insistence for the need of religious orders, associations and initiatives to submit for and receive “canonical provision” so as to avoid this type of “heresy”.
I wish to remind the Dimond Brothers, yet once again, that it’s still NOT too late for them to repent.
- Pax Tecum