[Campion]

I copied and pasted from the article. Those were not my words. I didn’t make anything up.

I didn't say you "made anything up". The article you pasted flatly states a falsehood. It tells a lie.

Anti-Catholic evangelicals always say, "Oh, we don't hate Catholics! We love Catholics!". REALITY CHECK! Telling a falsehood about someone else is slander. It's objectively a sin. It's -- objectively -- *never* an act of love.

(Subjectively, it can be done out of ignorance, and be innocent. However, I just popped any bubbles of ignorance on that topic, and am happy to pop them again. Do you want me to quote Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, on the topic? I'm happy to.)

[boatbums]

I didn't say you "made anything up". The article you pasted flatly states a falsehood. It tells a lie. Anti-Catholic evangelicals always say, "Oh, we don't hate Catholics! We love Catholics!". REALITY CHECK! Telling a falsehood about someone else is slander. It's objectively a sin. It's -- objectively -- *never* an act of love. (Subjectively, it can be done out of ignorance, and be innocent. However, I just popped any bubbles of ignorance on that topic, and am happy to pop them again. Do you want me to quote Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, on the topic? I'm happy to.)

This is what Metmom quoted:

If, as Rome maintains, the meritorious cause of justification is our inherent righteousness...

To which you pounced and said:

Rome maintains nothing of the sort. Why do you guys have to keep making up nonsense like this? The meritorious cause of our justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Whom is the false witness here? The way you state this, it sounds perfectly in line with the Reformation doctrines of justification by faith in Christ, but just digging a little bit deeper, we find that, just as Mormons do, so do Catholics on how they define and use words. It is a matter of semantics. Exploring what Catholics mean by "our justification is the righteousness of Christ", we find that "justification" isn't all that's involved in the gospel of Catholicism. You want to sic Ludwig Ott on us? Well here is some of what Mr. Ott says:

Christ’s redemptive activity finds its apogee in the death of sacrifice on the cross. On this account it is by excellence but not exclusively the efficient cause of our redemption....No one can be just to whom the merits of Christ’s passion have not been communicated. It is a fundamental doctrine of St. Paul that salvation can be acquired only by the grace merited by Christ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 185, 190).

Robert Sungenis explains it further:

What did Christ's suffering and death actually accomplish that allowed the Father to provide the human race with salvation? Did Christ take within himself the sin and guilt of mankind and suffer the specific punishment for that sin and guilt, as Protestants contend? The answer is no...Christ did not take upon himself the entire punishment required of man for sin. Rather, Scripture teaches only that Christ became a 'propitiation,' a 'sin offering,' or a 'sacrifice' for sins...Essentially, this means that Christ, because he was guiltless, sin-free and in favor with God, could offer himself up as a means of persuading God to relent of his angry wrath against the sins of mankind. Sin destroys God's creation. God, who is a passionate and sensitive being, is angry against man for harming the creation. Anger against sin shows the personal side of God, for sin is a personal offense against him. We must not picture God as an unemotional courtroom judge who is personally unharmed by the sin of the offender brought before him. God is personally offended by sin and thus he needs to be personally appeased in order to offer a personal forgiveness. In keeping with his divine principles, his personal nature, and the magnitude of the sins of man, the only thing that God would allow to appease him was the suffering and death of the sinless representative of mankind, namely, Christ (Robert Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone (Santa Barbara: Queenship, 1997), pp. 107-108).

Here's a bit more from Mr. Ott:

Justification is the declaration of the righteousness of the believer before the judgment seat of Christ...The Council of Trent teaches that for the justified eternal life is both a gift or grace promised by God and a reward for his own good works and merits... According to Holy Writ, eternal blessedness in heaven is the reward...for good works performed on this earth, and rewards and merit are correlative concepts (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp.254, 264).

By dogma in the strict sense is understood a truth immediately (formally) revealed by God which has been proposed by the Teaching Authority of the Church to be believed as such. Two factors or elements may be distinguished in the concept of dogma: A) An immediate Divine Revelation of the particular Dogma...i.e., the Dogma must be immediately revealed by God either explicitly (explicite) or inclusively (implicite), and therefore be contained in the sources of Revelation (Holy Writ or Tradition). B) The Promulgation of the Dogma by the Teaching Authority of the Church (propositio Ecclesiae). This implies, not merely the promulgation of the Truth, but also the obligation on the part of the Faithful of believing the Truth. This promulgation by the Church may be either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council (Iudicium solemns) or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church (Magisterium ordinarium et universale). The latter may be found easily in the catechisms issued by the Bishops. Dogma in its strict signification is the object of both Divine Faith (Fides Divina) and Catholic Faith (Fides Catholica); it is the object of the Divine Faith...by reason of its Divine Revelation; it is the object of Catholic Faith...on account of its infallible doctrinal definition by the Church. If a baptised person deliberately denies or doubts a dogma properly so-called, he is guilty of the sin of heresy (Codex Iuris Canonici 1325, Par. 2), and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication (Codex Iuris Canonici 2314, Par. I). As far as the content of justifying faith is concerned, the so-called fiducial faith does not suffice. What is demanded is theological or dogmatic faith (confessional faith) which consists in the firm acceptance of the Divine truths of Revelation, on the authority of God Revealing...According to the testimony of Holy Writ, faith and indeed dogmatic faith, is the indispensable prerequisite for the achieving of eternal salvation(emphasis added) (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 4-5, 253).

If we are being honest here, and you did say that was your intent - to keep everybody honest, we would see that what Catholicism teaches about salvation, justification, sanctification, glorification, grace and faith are NOT how Holy Scripture clearly teaches it. Why else must the magesterium retain complete control over how Scripture is "interpreted"? So, saying Catholicism "maintains, the meritorious cause of justification is our inherent righteousness", really ISN'T a lie since we know good and well that Catholicism ADDS that grace enables us to do works of righteousness in order to merit justification and eternal life. Why not be honest about that part?