DeoOmnisGloria.com

Thank you for this, I have found it very helpful.

Posted by: Contra at March 15, 2008 3:39 PM

Dear Contra, Thank you for taking the time to read the Foundation of Faith booklet. Did you find any part of it difficult to understand? Any part that was hard to accept?

Posted by: Bob at March 16, 2008 10:58 PM

Jay,

I read a book which is a summary or paraphrase if you will of the Catechism called "This is our Faith". In that book, the author explains that the Church considers those that are saved through faith and baptism in other denominations as Christians and having means to heaven or salvation. He also goes through reasoning that those who never heard the gospel, like prehistoric pagans or tribesmen that have never heard the gospel or joined any church may be saved. Summarily that they will be judged on however they responded to whatever knowledge they had of God and good, and how they responded to it. This would not be true according to this tract, "Foundation of Faith" would it. And what about the Pope's statement that Christ has not refrained the Holy Spirit from working in seperated communities (churches but not really Church). Are these two mutually exclusive modes of thought and do you come down on one side or the other, or do you somehow reconcile them?
Jay, you could change a few things about this article and drop the Catholic Church angle and it is very similar to a fundamentalistic tract. You really just substitute "personal relationship with Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior" instead of "must join Catholic Church"...I mean you used to be Baptist so you know what I am talking about don't you?

You know, I've had discussions with other Baptists and Protestants about what would happen to those that never heard the gospel or were of other religions if they would go to hell and most would say that if they weren't "saved" then yes they would go to hell, and this guy Wolfe sounds just like those guys only Catholic. I believe Jesus saves but I have a hard time picturing all those Indians (native Americans) going straight to Hell who were here before any Christians arrived. When I read that book I started to think that maybe the Catholic Faith made more sense/reason than what I knew as a Baptist. But then I read this and some other Catholic writings (did you read that scary site that Matthew linked to once? They said that you guys, John Paul II, Catholic Answers, EWTN and the current Pope along with all the daughters of the church (other denominations) were being led straight to Hell by Satan because they didn't believe just like this article by Wolfe says. Given what the article says about the Church being the Pillar and Bullwark of Truth, if you and I were able to get an audience with the Pope, all Ecumenism aside, for all the world to hear, must you be Catholic to go to heaven or what?

skelly

Posted by: skelly at March 16, 2008 11:46 PM

Dear Skelly,

I can understand your feelings. I am 75 years old and at one time I also believed as you do, as you expressed in your reply to my Foundation of Faith article. I hope I can explain how I came to see after a long study of the teaching of the Church that Her doctrine is as I have stated it in the Foundation of Faith article.

The Doctrine of Hell is Mystery, cannot be Totally Rationalized

You have answered my article with human reason. Hell is one of the many objects of Faith that are shrouded in mystery. It cannot be fully rationalized. Is our Faith reasonable? No. Our Faith is not absurd, but it is not absolutely reasonable either. Reason is natural human intelligence, but the Faith proceeds from Divine intelligence and revelation. When the objects of Faith reach our minds they have, inevitably, the aspect of mystery about them. This is the point of departure from which we must think about hell.

It is very hard for us to see from reason how any crime of man can ever deserve eternal punishment. "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is reasonable. When a man kills another man, kill him, but why send him to eternal fire? Why send the unbaptized baby to an everlasting punishment of loss in Limbo, and for a crime he did not personally commit? To believe that we can rationalize our way to spiritual truth about hell would the heresy of Rationalism. The essence of rationalism is the negation of all mystery. If all the mysteries of our holy religion were to become eventually fully rationalized, as is happening extensively to modern Catholics, the Church then would have adjusted Herself, that is, succumbed, to the Masonic norm.

Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical Mystici Corporis on the Mystical Body of Christ teaches about rationalism. The Pope speaks of “false rationalism, which ridicules anything that transcends and defies the power of human genius.” Concerning this rationalism, he says:
"As the (First) Vatican Council teaches, 'if the human reason enlightened by faith seeks earnestly, piously, and wisely, it is enabled by the grace of God to attain a partial and even profitable understanding of mysteries, both by comparing them with what it knows naturally and also through the connection of mysteries with each other and with the last end of man'; although, as the same Holy Synod warns us, even reason thus enlightened 'never becomes capable of understanding those mysteries as it does those truths which form its proper object.'"

The Difference between the Punishment and the Torments of Hell

This being said, we may affirm in the spirit of the traditional Faith, that in hell, the loss of the Beatific Vision, is a punishment but not a torment. The souls of unbaptized infants can enjoy a perfect natural happiness in Limbo (which is part of Hell, not of Heaven), but though they do not suffer the torments of the fires of hell, they are suffering a punishment never the less: they are deprived of an infinite good not due to their nature.

In his encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore of August 10, 1863, Pope Pius IX wrote, "...for God, Who has perfect knowledge, examines and judges the minds, the souls, the thoughts and the deeds of all men, and He does not permit, in His sovereign Goodness and Mercy, any men not culpable of willful sin to be punished with eternal torment." He also condemns as "absolutely contrary to Catholic teaching" the notion that "persons living in error and outside the True Faith and Catholic unity can reach eternal life."

The Hell of Faith is not a punishment for crime, but for sin; and sin adds to crime an entirely new aspect — the aspect of contempt or even hatred of God. It is because the everlasting God commanded "Thou shalt not kill" that murder becomes more than a crime — a sin.

Even missing Mass on Sunday, or exceeding the limit allowed for servile work on the Lord's day, if it remains forever unconfessed and unrepented, deserves eternal punishment; that is, in its aspect of contempt for God. Even the guilt of original sin, by which we inherit a nature lacking the supernatural desire for the Beatific Vision, carries with it the loss of that infinite good which, naturally speaking, can neither be desired nor missed by any mere creature not reborn by grace.

All the damned do not Suffer Alike.

The punishment of those in hell is proportioned to the malice and gravity of their sins. “Give unto her double according to her works.” (Apoc. 18:6.) For example, the torments of hell are completely absent from the Limbo of unbaptized babies. A careless housewife who missed Mass on Sunday is not punished equally with a Justice of the Supreme Court who approved abortion.

How does God judge in each and every case? We do not know, nor do we need or want to know. It is a mystery. We have all eternity to find out. The Holy Ghost forbids such curiosity: "In unnecessary matters be not over curious" (Eccus. 3:24). Our Lord calls it "the idle word" for which every man must give account on the Day of Judgment.

The Message of Our Lady at Fatima

In Our Lady's message at Fatima, the part that left the deepest impression on the minds and lives of the seers was the vision of Hell. Obviously, the Mother of God is equally anxious that the modern world should know that Hell is a reality. She commanded the three children to add to every decade of the Rosary a short prayer:
"O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell. . . ."

The sense of this little addition was already implicit in every Hail Mary, the climax of which is the phrase; "Pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death." That is the hour that will decide for each one of us our eternal destiny — Heaven or Hell.

So much for what concerns the essence of Hell, which according to sound Catholic theology consists in the loss of the Beatific Vision, a punishment common to Hell (proper) and to the Limbo of the unbaptized.

More on How We Know about Heaven, Hell and Salvation

We have an imperfect knowledge of Hell, which comes from the virtue of Faith. But, just as no one knows darkness who has not seen light, no man can fully know Hell until he has the Beatific Vision. We cannot know Hell now any more perfectly than we can know Heaven; and we know about Heaven only because He Who came down from Heaven has revealed that truth to us. For Jesus, our Savior, revealed to us not merely the way to salvation, but the reality itself, and we have to take salvation on His terms.

Here are Our Savior's own words:
"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5.)
And again:
"Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16.)

As we showed in the Foundation of Faith article, the Church, “the pillar and bulwark of truth,” is the only infallible interpreter of Sacred Scripture. In addition to the three infallible definitions of no salvation outside the Church given in The Foundation of Faith article, here are the infallible teachings of the Council of Trent, Session 7, the Canons on the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism, for salvation:

Can. 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema.
Can. 3. If anyone says that in the Roman Church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of Baptism, let him be anathema.

The Invincibly Ignorant Native

The Jesuit, Saint John de Brebeuf, and his companions, the eight North American Martyrs, were martyred trying to bring the Catholic faith and the Sacrament of Baptism to the savage natives of North America. They knew and believed that their Church, the Catholic Church, taught that those native Americans would go to hell if they did not receive and believe the gospel message and receive the Sacrament of Baptism. They gave their lives in martyrdom for that belief. The same holds true for all the martyred Catholic missionaries throughout the ages who went to the four corners of the earth to convert invincibly ignorant natives because these missionaries knew and believed that outside the Church there is no salvation.

Our Mission as Catholics

We are not to judge whether any individual will go to heaven or hell. We must not. Jesus Christ will come to judge. But we know what Jesus Christ did command us to do and we must do what He commanded. Our mission as Catholics is to follow our Lord’s commandments in Matthew 28:18-20:

18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

To say that we need not go to the “invincibly ignorant” or anyone else outside the Catholic Church, because they can be saved where they are, by their ignorance, outside the Church, is to me, not believable, not the teaching of the Church. It is to say that we need not follow our Lord’s commandments.

In all charity, it seems to me that you did not refute anything I said in the Foundation of Faith article. You didn’t even try to refute it. I gave the infallible teachings of the Church to back up my position. You gave only your personal feelings. I certainly do not question your faith, but faith is not a feeling.

God bless,

Bob

Posted by: Bob Wolfe at March 18, 2008 6:56 AM

Dear Skelly,

Another thought occured to me after I posted my reply to you.

Of all the people on earth at the time of the great flood, which must have included many invincibly ignorant people, only eight people were saved with Noah in the ark. By following your feelings, we would have to say that God was unjust in destroying all those people outside the ark. I'm sure you agree that is impossible.

Also, the catechisms you referred to are not endowed with the same charism of infallibility as the definitions of the popes I referred to. If a catechism is printed with the imprimatur, that is not a guarantee of infallibility. The imprimatur attached to any work can be revoked. Even recently the Vatican revoked the imprimatur of some of the official published writings of the American bishops.

God bless,

Bob

Posted by: Bob Wolfe at March 18, 2008 7:25 AM

Bob,

I see the teaser but I cannot locate the text of your posts. Maybe they will show up later.

Thanks,

Skelly

Posted by: skelly at March 19, 2008 11:38 PM

Bob I have some questions:

1. do you denying the possibility of "baptism by desire" or "baptism by blood"?

2. do you deny the possibility that God might save the "invincibly ignorant"?

3. where did you get the idea that people who accept baptism by desire or salvation for the invincibly ignorant would not engage in missionary activity?

4. where did you get the idea that people who believe that unbaptized infants might receive the beatific vision would not baptize their babies?

5. Are catechumens who die a martyr's death before baptism denied the beatific vision?

6. Does the good thief enjoy the beatific vision?

Posted by: Burnt Marshwiggle at March 20, 2008 9:15 AM

Bob,

I did not state my feelings. I did state my opinions/reasonings if you will.

My reasonings are still the same. To me, there is not much difference between your stated points and the points of the fundamentalists Christians, only your Catholic and they are not.

So, it seems that your answer would be, yes, you must be Catholic to go to heaven.

So, according to Church teachings, is the Sacrement of Baptism only good when administered by the Roman Catholic Church?

If you preach to me this truth and I reject it, I am condemned, that is what you are saying.

(I am not claiming to know what Hell is or what it is like)

I didn't think the book "This is Our Faith" was considered to be infallible so thus my question did it correctly state the teachings of the Church or no?

If I can be accepted into the Catholic Church after going through the proper classes and profession of Faith, but I don't have to be Baptised again, isn't this validation by the Church of the sacrement performed outside the Catholic Church?

I didn't try to refute anything you said. I did make comparisons to what I have been taught in the Baptist faith and what others outside the Catholic Church are preaching. Again I didn't mention my feelings, I admit to stating my reasonings. Your reply confirms what I thought you to be stating in your booklet.

What would the current Pope Benedict say in reply to my question, given that he has said, and I paraphrase, that Christ has not withheld the Holy Spirit from working in the seperated communities, they just lack the fulness of the faith to be considered Churches? If you don't want to put words in his mouth then I completely understand...

Thanks,

skelly

Posted by: skelly at March 20, 2008 9:31 AM

Jay,

I suspect that Paul would have a problem with how Robert Wolfe removes his words out of the context of the argument in the letter to the Romans to make broad claims about God hiding truth from “those who do not love it.” The implication is that non-believing Israelites are ignorant of and/or do not love God’s truth, and that God has “withdrawn His grace” from them (???).

I am of course, no fan of neo-traditionalisms that – contrary to Nostra Aetate and the teachings of JP2 and the Vatican – proclaim non-believing Israelites (Judaism) as an “apostate religion.” Whether Wolfe is Catholic or not, his (mis)appropriation of Paul here, can feed such inclinations, and sadly, at Easter time.

In context, Paul’s words at Rom 11:7-10 are to be understood as prefatory to his ultimate conclusion that underscores the sovereignty of God in God’s dealings with Gentile and Jew. The conclusion as far as non-believing Israel goes, is that it is God who has blinded a part of Israel, but only temporarily, and so that the believing Gentiles (that would be us) can be brought into the promise. I quote Paul in part.

I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not become wise in your own estimation: a hardening has come upon Israel in part, until the full number of the Gentiles comes in…In respect to the gospel, they are enemies on your account; but in respect to election, they are beloved because of the patriarchs. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. Just as you once disobeyed God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience, so they have now disobeyed in order that, by virtue of the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy. For God delivered all to disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all. (Rom 11:25, 28-32; NAB @ USCCB).

I’m not suggesting that Wolfe intends to articulate anything about the faith/fate of non-believing Israelites in his writing. But I am suggesting that pulling texts out of context to make broad claims about something can be risky business, especially when/if folks take the broad claims at face value and track-back through the texts cited. And folks do this very thing all the time.

Blessings.

Posted by: Jack Daniels at March 21, 2008 9:45 AM

skelly,

Your understanding of Roman Catholic sacraments looks pretty good to me. The Roman Catholic Church recognizes as valid the baptisms done "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" with water and the intent to baptize.

Even though the Council of Trent declared Protestant doctrines "anathema", there still remains a powerful unity among all the baptized despite the deep wound that separates Catholic from Protestant. Also, the sin of "schism" cannot be attached to people who were never a part of the Catholic Church. Hence, the term "schismatic" as a slur against Protestants was actually quite out of date less than a century after the Reformation.

As for the current practice of acknowledging the prior baptism of people entering full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, this appears to be a Second Vatican Council reform. I have read pre-Vatican II apologetics material defending the practice of conditionally baptizing because we have no way of knowing if the Protestants got it right.

Posted by: Burnt Marshwiggle at March 21, 2008 10:06 AM

Dear Burnt,

I am only a layman, not a priest or theologian, but as we all should, I try to know and live the Catholic faith. I have been researching the question of baptism of desire (BOD) and baptism of blood (BOB) and have put literally hundreds of hours into the study. I hope to get time to complete a paper I’m writing on the study and will share it with readers of this site if and when I complete it. I have not the time and space to get into all the details here, but from what I have been able to discern, the Church has never infallibly defined BOD and BOB but has continued to allow theological speculation and debate on them. One would have expected the Council of Trent to define the issue but it is silent on BOD and BOB per se. It never uses those phrases. But it does address the issue of the unbaptized catechumen, which I discuss below.

The controversy over baptism of desire concerns primarily the interpretation of Our Lord’s words in John 3:5, "Except a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

The Council of Trent quotes this verse twice, once explaining the word "water" as being "true and natural water" (Denzinger 858), and the other time explaining the words "except a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost .…” as expressing the necessity of the water "re aut voto - in fact or in voto. The Latin word voto means vow or resolve (here it means a vow or resolve to seek water Baptism): here are the words of The Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4. "After the promulgation of the Gospel this passing (from sin to justice) cannot take place without the laver of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.], or a desire for it, as it is written: 'except a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"' (see Dz. 796, Dz. 847).

In Catholic theology this transition from sin to justice is called Justification. It is the spiritual transition of the unjust man to the state of sanctifying grace. Trent says it cannot take place without the laver of regeneration, which is the Sacrament of Baptism, or a vow to receive Baptism. Trent also uses the phrase “resolve to receive Baptism” (see below).

Session 6 of Trent is replete with references to the necessity of EXPLICIT CATHOLIC FAITH and the grace flowing from it, in order to see the Beatific Vision. Here are just two of them. In Session 6 Chapter 2 we read, “Him [Jesus] has God proposed as a propitiator through faith in His blood . .

Most importantly, in the statement from Session 6, Chapter 6, on the preparation of adult catechumens for Justification Trent says, “Now they [the adult catechumens] are disposed to that justice [can. 7 and 9] when, aroused and assisted by divine grace, receiving faith "by hearing" [Rom. 10:I7], they are freely moved toward God, believing that to be true which has been divinely revealed and promised [can. 12 and 14], and this especially, that the sinner is justified by God through His grace, "through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, …" (Rom. 3:24) [Dz. 798].” “…[they are disposed to that justice] finally, when they resolve to receive Baptism …”

In Chapter 7 Trent says, “This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only the remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just …” And, “This faith, conformably to Apostolic tradition, catechumens ask of the Church before the sacrament of Baptism, when they ask for the faith that gives eternal life …”

Faith “Conformable to Apostolic tradition” means the Catholic faith, traced through the apostolic succession of Catholic bishops back to the apostles.

So we see that EXPLICIT CATHOLIC FAITH and a resolve to receive Baptism are necessary for the catechumen to be justified (placed in the state of sanctifying grace). To be justified he must have heard and received the Catholic faith, which includes submission to the Roman Pontiff. He prepares himself for Justification by making an act of faith and vowing to receive water Baptism. At the instant of his Justification he has Catholic faith in his heart and sanctifying grace in his soul and, should he be martyred at that instant, he would see the Beatific Vision. This is the Catholic faith defined by the Council of Trent.

BUT THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE OF THE LIBERALS IN THE CHURCH TODAY, according to whom, anyone can be saved in invincible ignorance, outside the Catholic Church, without water Baptism, without explicit Catholic faith, and without sanctifying grace in his soul. As I have stated, the imprimatur on a catechism does not mean its contents are infallibly true.

There is so much more that needs to be said about Trent and BOD; perhaps in another post. But what I have said adds additional proof from Trent to explain my position on no salvation outside the Church, which I believe is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

If the liberal definition of baptism of desire were true, there would be no need risk one’s life to go to convert fierce, invincibly ignorant pagan natives. According to that liberal definition, membership in the Catholic Church is not necessary for salvation. Taking their position, it would be foolhardy to risk one’s life for something that is not really necessary.

The liberal definition of BOD contradicts the infallibly defined Catholic dogma that I have quoted in Foundation of Faith and the Council of Trent. Isn’t it strange that the comments against the position in my article do not quote a single infallible definition to support their position? No, it isn’t strange because there are no infallible definitions to support the liberal definition. Not even from the post Vatican II popes, as I have show in the version of the Foundation of Truth for Catholics. This liberal definition is something new and contradictory to infallibly revealed truth. A hundred years ago everyone, non-Catholic and Catholic alike, knew that the Catholic Church claimed there is no salvation outside Her. But the modern popes have abandoned the precise language of Thomistic, scholastic philosophy, and have thereby allowed ambiguity to creep into their fallible writings and utterances. A false ecumenism has resulted in a watering down of the faith trying to make the Church more palatable to Protestants. Not only has it not brought in the Protestants, it has caused a mass exodus from the Catholic Church and driven the Orthodox further away from reunion with us. We all know the undeniable statistics of that exodus.

So, Burnt, to answer your specific questions,

(1) do you denying the possibility of "baptism by desire" or "baptism by blood"? I deny the existence of baptism of desire because by that phrase people mean the liberal interpretation given fallibly at all levels in the Church today but infallibly denied by Trent and Popes. But see also my answer to your question 5. All the Fathers and Doctors of the Church accept BOB. I therefore do also..
(2) do you deny the possibility that God might save the "invincibly ignorant"? I deny that God might save the invincibly ignorant (by that I mean give him the Beatific Vision). His fallen human nature has no right to it. But I do not know, nor does anyone know, the extent of his torment, if any, by the fires of hell. Only God knows that. I think that any torment would depend on the extent to which he was culpable of violating the natural law, which God has made known to every human person (thou shalt not kill, etc.).
(3) where did you get the idea that people who accept baptism by desire or salvation for the invincibly ignorant would not engage in missionary activity? I have answered this question above. Why would anyone put his life in jeopardy by martyrdom for that which is not necessary. It seems foolhardy.
(4) where did you get the idea that people who believe that unbaptized infants might receive the beatific vision would not baptize their babies? I don’t think I expressed this idea.
(5) Are catechumens who die a martyr's death before baptism denied the beatific vision? I have explained above, according to Trent, the conditions for a catechumen seeing the Beatific Vision.
(6) Does the good thief enjoy the beatific vision? The repentant thief died before the promulgation of the Gospel and was therefore not subject to the same conditions for salvation that the Church has defined as applying to us today. Jesus said the repentant thief would see Him in paradise so when the thief died he must have gone to the limbo of the just, awaiting heaven to be opened by Christ.

I hope that the questions I may ask are answered as forthrightly as I have answered these.

I'll try to answer in due time the others who have commented on my Foundation of Faith article.

God bless,

Bob

Posted by: Bob Wolfe at March 21, 2008 10:31 PM

Dear Skelly,

Instead of using the word feelings when I wrote about your response, I should have used the word beliefs or the word opinions. Please forgive me. I apologize for my mistake and uncharitableness.

On baptisms done outside the Church, the Church teaches that anyone using the right form and having the intention of the Church can baptize validly. The normal minister of Baptism inside the Church is the bishop or priest, but in an emergency any Catholic can baptize. I baptized my Father a few hours before he died. Thanks be to God.

I have not read the book This Is Our Faith, but if it says unequivocally that outside the
Church there is salvation, it is not teaching the Catholic faith correctly.

I hope you read the posted version of my article for Catholics because at the end of it I quote the modern popes, all of whom have affirmed the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation. Although the modern popes may have used ambiguous language about it, none of them have used their charism of infallibility to deny the infallible definitions of their predecessors affirming the dogma. That would be impossible. Please reread my quotes of the modern popes.

I have a recent document written by Bishop William Lori, representing the committee on doctrine of the US Bishops, USCCB, which also affirms the dogma. They refute the teaching of Fr. Peter Phan in his book which claims there is salvation outside the Church. The title of Bishop Lori's document is: Clarifications Required by the Book "Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue by Reverend Peter C. Phan." The Phan book strongly promotes the idea that it is not necessary to preach the Gospel to non-Christians because they can be saved in their own faith. Bishop Lori’s document has two very significant headings pertaining to our discussions, and I quote the document, "Jesus Christ as the unique and universal Savior of all mankind" and "the Church as the unique and universal instrument of salvation." If you cannot find the document, please let me now and I can provide it.

God bless,

Bob

Posted by: Bob Wolfe at March 22, 2008 9:49 AM

Bob,

Is anyone outside the Catholic Church in a state of sanctifying grace? Including those who profess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and are Baptised in another church/denomination...

I would suspect from your posts that you would have to say no...

Thanks for taking the time to post replys on this site.

skelly

Posted by: skelly at March 22, 2008 4:00 PM

Dear Skelly,

I must admit again, I am not a theologion and your question is a very technical and hypothetical question that I may make a mistake on, but I think the answer to your question, "Is anyone outside the Catholic Church in the state of grace?" is Yes.

Here's my reasoning. Any Protestant, child or adult, when he is validly baptized, receives at the instant of his baptism the grace of that sacrament, which includes remission of all his sins (oritginal and actual) and sanctifying grace in his soul.

A baptized Protestant baby or child who has not reached the age of reason is therefore in the state of sanctifying grace until reaching the age of reason and is culpably guilty of refusing to join the Catholic Church, or any other mortal sin.

A Protestant adult, at the instant of his valid baptism, would also be in the state of sanctifying grace but, if after being baptized commits any mortal sin, for example if he immediately rejects joining the Catholic Church, he is culpable and loses the sanctifying grace of the sacrament.

If my logic is wrong I would accept correction on this point.

But I think you intend in asking your question to address the mature, adult, baptized Protestant who says he accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and savior but rejects the Catholic faith and has refused joining the Catholic Church established by the Jesus he says he believes in, and rejects submission to the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, the currently reigning Pope. That rejection or any other mortal sin committed after his Baptism would cause the loss of the sanctifying grace of the sacrament.

Without the sanctifying grace of the other sacraments of the Catholic Church, especially the Holy Eucharist, it would be extremely difficult even for the justified but unbaptized catechumen to long remain in the state of sanctifying grace, let alone a Protestant who rejects the sacraments of the one true Church established by Christ as the channels for sanctifying grace.

Much more could be said about grace, for example, a Protestant or anyone else who rejects the Catholic Faith and Church could definitely receive actual grace (but not sanctifying grace)from God. But that point would lead to another long discussion.

In all of these discussions on the various points of the faith, I never want to lose sight of the virtue of charity, the love of neighbor for the love of God, that is demanded of us by Christ. It is only because of that love of neighbor, and you are my neighbor, that I would bother to spend the significant amount of time to do all the research and writing necessary to intelligently participate in the mission of this website.

God bless,

Bob

Posted by: Bob Wolfe at March 23, 2008 6:59 AM

I'm a homeschool mother of 8 children, not a Catholic theologian by any stretch, but I do see two issues here that concern me as a Catholic. Two issues that have touched me personally. Two issues that I have personally consulted my priest (Msgr.) about.

The first: Unbaptized babies go to limbo.

My older sister died during childbirth (she was stillborn). My mother was told by her Catholic doctor that the baby went to limbo. When I heard this as a young child, I always felt in my heart that my sister was with Jesus (feelings do matter). About 10 years later, a priest did confirm to my mother that her baby indeed was in heaven. I haven't heard anyone seriously speak of limbo in over 25 years (although I have heard it used as slang meaning "a lost or confused state"), but a couple of years ago, my mother mentioned it again. I wanted to set the record straight, so I consulted my priest (Msgr.). He said, "LIMBO WAS ONLY AN HYPOTHESIS, NOT CHURCH DOCTRINE. THE CONCEPT HAS NEVER BEEN AN OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE CHURCH." What does the church believe regarding unbaptized babies/small children? "ALL UNBAPTIZED BABIES GO TO HEAVEN. Why? Because of Baptism of Desire. The Church desires to baptize all babies." According to my priest (Msgr), this IS THE OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

I feel sad for all mothers (and fathers) who were told in error that their precious babies were in limbo. I personally have 4 babies in heaven (one very recently entered). It is my hope to reunite with all 12 of my children one day.

Pope John Paul II's encyclical vitae, (the English translation), addressed to women who had an abortion provides as follows: "The Father of Mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost, and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, WHO IS NOW LIVING WITH THE LORD.

As Cardinal Ratzinger, the Pope has said he believed the concept of limbo could be set aside because it is "only a theological concept" and "never a defined truth of faith."

My second problem: Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.

My 14 year old daughter came out of her catechism class saying her teacher had said this. I felt in my heart this wasn't right (Billy Graham? Come on!) Once again I consulted my priest (Msgr.) His answer: "yes, this is wrong because it was taken out of the original context that it was in. You need to read all the statement to understand it's meaning. Vatacan II clarified the issue." I found these paragraphs from reputable Catholic sites:

"Extra Ecclesiam nulla Salus" or "Outside the church there is no salvation is a very ancient phrase and dates back to early Christianity. At the time it meant to affirm the necessity of baptism and the Christian Faith. "The church" in this phrase did not refer exclusively to the Roman Catholic Church. The phrase teaches us that salvation is through Christ. Father Feeney was an American priest who, back in the 1940's taught that if a person was not Roman Catholic, they were condemned to hell. This has never been accepted teaching of Catholicism and Father Feeney was reprimanded by the Vatacan. There are still some Catholics that believe like Father Feeney, that there are no such things as Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, and there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. You can read more about "Feeneyism" at this site:
http://www.truecatholic.org/gb/gb-200003-feeneyerror.htm

Vatacan II "The Decree on Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegration (1964) recognizes other denominations as fellow Christians "The children who are born into these communities and who grew up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic church embraces upon them as brothers.... even though this communion is imperfect, it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers of the children of the Catholic Church." You can read all the Vatacan II statement here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Skelly, that's a good point about the Indians/natives etc... never hearing the message of Christ. You're right, it's ridiculous to believe that they suffer an eternal punishment of hell (or the non-existent limbo) for something they didn't know. How could they be Catholic? I haven't talked to my priest (did I mention he's a Monsignor?:-) about this, but I did find this catechism passage. It makes sense given that all human beings (those that are mentally capable) have a sense of God and therefor have a sense of right/wrong, good/evil.

CCC 847: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart and, moved by Grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience, those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Skelly, keep asking questions and searching for the Truth!

Happy Easter! What a joyful occasion for all Christians!

Peace,
Mary

Posted by: Mary at March 24, 2008 2:28 AM

Mary, I realize this is unwelcome news for you, but your quotation from paragraph 99 of Evangelium Vitae is a very poor and misleading translation. Unfortunately, you have been taught two errors not one concerning unbaptized infants.

A better translation of Evangelium Vitae can be found on the Vatican website (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html)

"The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. To the same Father and his mercy you can with sure hope entrust your child."

Just as it is incorrect to say that the Church teaches that all unbaptized infants go to Limbo, it is also incorrect to say that the Church teaches that all unbaptized infants go to heaven. We simply do not know and entrust these infants to the mercy of God just as we entrust our other loved ones to the mercy of God.

Posted by: Burnt Marshwiggle at March 24, 2008 10:59 AM

Burnt,

Your site wouldn't come up, try these:

http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=5118
http://www.diopitt.org/tea_postabortion.php
http://www.adoremus.org/0507Limbo.html
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2964/post-abortion.html
http://www.ewtn.org/library/encyc/jp2evang.htm

The EWTN article is long... look near the end.

It appears to me that the correct English translation is "now living in the Lord" I apologize for my prepositional error (with), but that doesn't change the meaning.

I also agree that to state that anyone definitely goes to heaven is an overstatement on my part. I should say "it is my belief, or my hope". I have no problem with saying that all souls are "entrusted in the Lord". This is also true.

Burnt, as you know I am in mourning over the loss of a child. This may be the reason for my overstatement. The lack of sensitivity in your tone felt like a "stab".

Skelly, you have such a genuine quality about you. You're probably the reason why I came back to this site. I know you are searching.

May I suggest that you talk to a couple of really good priests to get some correct answers. Of course priests have different personalities, find one you like (I love mine). Some people on this site have a real self-righteous attitude. I sincerely apologize if I ever have sounded like that. It is not my intention.

Skelly, there are many areas in the church that are not "black and white". It's OK for Catholics to form their own opinion on such things. This doesn't make anyone more/less or better/worse Catholic.

I just wanted to make sure that you and others like you know that there is another side to these issues that were being taught as doctrine.

Peace,
Mary

Posted by: Mary at March 24, 2008 2:31 PM

Bob

If I was Protesting Christian under the rule of say bloody Mary... I had been raised as a Protesting Christian call me ...Jack. I was baptized and did my best given the crumbs of grace that fell to me from the children. My parents were drawn and quartered in front of my eyes in the name of the Catholic Church by the queen (though her actions are not blessed by the church)... I can't bring myself due to the limited grace I get... to convert. Do I go to hell in your mind?

In Love

when we were one

Posted by: when we were one at March 24, 2008 3:33 PM

Mary,

The book I read "This is Our Faith" seems to be going with the points made from the sources that you quoted on this issue of Salvation outside the church or other Christians.

Same seems to be true of the Baptised/unbaptized infants issue. These were what I thought to be the teachings of the Church from reading on this site as well as other sources and talking to other Catholics. I never heard of Limbo as a teaching of any Church really until this current thread.

I really appreciate the article though and the input of Bob Wolfe and his taking the time to reply and articulate and explain if you will.

There really seems to be some confusion and disagreement that seems to revolve around pre-Vatican II and post Vatican II that seems to be fueling disagreements among Catholics as to what is the official teaching of the Church.

I was also really hoping for Jay to way in because the "Foundations" article to me isn't totally in agreement with what has been promoted on this site...Or is it? I really would like for Jay or Daniel or Joe to way in on this thread on these two things especially that we have been discussing. (salvation outside the Church and babies...)

Again, thanks to Bob for the article and for replying to the comments. To me this really highlights some differences of opinion between what have been called traditionalists and nontraditionalists in the Church. I don't know that this is a correct or fair label so I apologize if I offend anyone that is not my aim I am just ignorant of the correct thing to say.

Thanks,

skelly

Posted by: skelly at March 24, 2008 7:23 PM

Burnt and Skelly,

For some reason, my post that was written earlier has just been posted. It was posted before WWWO's, yet his was posted way before mine. This has happened before.... just letting you know because I wrote it to you.

Mary

Posted by: Mary at March 24, 2008 9:34 PM

Mary,

Thanks for your comment. "Searching" is a good word to describe me now. There was one Priest here in my area that I would have felt comfortable talking with but he has been transferred. The one here know confuses me some with his homily and my wife has talked to him and came away confused. I don't intend to fault anymore than myself as there are others I could talk to. When you are searching and asking questions like we talk about on this site, many Pastors, Protestant and Catholic, don't want to go around in circles with people who have questions about the truth. I am sure they get many people who just want to argue and prove their own point so I don't blame them really. I feel more comfortable reading and researching and talking to people on and off this site. I feel this can't go on forever but I guess we will all be searching until the end. Many of my attitudes have been changed or are changing, about faith and how were supposed to live. Thanks for posting and replying.

skelly

Burnt
"To the same Father and his mercy you can with sure hope entrust your child"

Isn't this as close to saying that the Church believes these babies are in Heaven that you can get without saying it?

"Sure Hope" to me is how people come up with their belief in assurance of Salvation. (Some call this once saved always saved.) The simple concept of believing and keep believing what God has promised, trusting him always and surrendering your life/will to his. Some would call this obedience. I think some think that this surrender/obedience automatically happens after making an initial decision to follow Christ or ask him into your heart but it really doesn't. It's like when people get married and expect daily bliss but when that doesn't happen instead of working at it and asking for and giving forgiveness when we mess up they just give up.

I apologize for rambling. Thanks for your posts.

skelly

Posted by: skelly at March 24, 2008 11:53 PM

Skelly,

I'm fine with entrusting my children (and all children) to the Lord, for this is who they are with. I see this statement just as you do. I guess some (very few) may think this means our Lord then places these little souls in this weird limbo place.

There's nothing wrong with believing, as a Catholic, that all babies go to heaven. My priest was right. Baptism of Desire is an official teaching of the church. Stating that the church desires to baptize all babies, therefore all babies fall under the baptism of desire, is a true church belief.

Limbo has never been an official teaching of the church. Our own pope has even dismissed it. I don't know anyone who believes in it personally. Every now and then, I'll here mention of it, usually from someone in the senior age group. I guess they were taught this as children. If a catholic personally wants to believe this, they can go right ahead, but if anyone tries to pass this off as an official teaching of the church, they are wrong, wrong, WRONG.

This has gotten way to emotional for me. Here I am with my baby's body still with my physically, but the little life gone, trying to defend his/her soul in heaven. I will be spending more time in prayer instead of on this site.

I am interested in your possible conversion though. It sounds like you already read a good book on Catholocism. Some of all this "technical" little stuff you really don't need to know to be a good Catholic. "Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth" is an excellent booklet you can buy from Catholicanswers.com for about 2.00. It takes about an hour to read carefully. This will give you a good solid foundation for your possible conversion. I read it with my older children regularly. You would make a good catholic, converts usually do. Just keep your same sweet spirit. Don't become the catholic "flipside" to the protestant extremist that thinks he has all the answers, has a Bible verse for everything, and is always there to correct anyone if they have one word of a verse out of place. I think you know what I mean, every religion has them. I may check back sometime in the future to see how you're doing. If not, God Bless you.

Blessings and Peace,
Mary

Posted by: Mary at March 25, 2008 1:24 PM

Mary,

God bless you. Thanks for all of your concern and comments. I hope that God uses your current situation to bring you and your family closer to each other and closer to Him. I will miss your posts but I sincerely understand and agree with your current decision. Thanks very much.

skelly

Posted by: skelly at March 25, 2008 10:10 PM

Dear Skelly,

You have discerned correctly when you say there is a big difference, confusion, a contradiction actually, between what is taught today by individuals in the Church regarding salvation and what has been taught traditionally by the Church since Her beginning. That contradiction is a fundamental cause of disunity among members of the Church today. And it is a recent phenomenon.

As I mentioned previously, a hundred years ago, religiously informed persons, both Catholic and non-Catholic, knew that the Catholic Church claimed there is no salvation outside Her. My references in Foundation of Faith quoting the three infallible declarations of popes, and also quoting the constant teaching of the Fathers, Doctors and Saints of the Church in all ages, makes that point very clear.

But we should keep in mind that the key statements are the three infallible statements by the popes affirming that dogma. Anything contrary to or contradicting infallible statements are only personal theological opinions that would have been declared heresy until recently in the Church, regardless of whether such a statement were to be made by a pope, cardinal, bishop, priest or layman. And, as I also said previously, no modern Pope has made an infallible statement contradicting that dogma. That would be impossible. They have all reaffirmed it.

I call attention to the reference in Foundation of Faith to the document "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," approved by Pope Benedict XVI and released on July 10, 2007. Here is the key quote from that document.
“Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?” The response was, “The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it. This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council. Paul VI affirmed it and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen Gentium: ‘There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach.’”

Another issue I would like to comment on again is the limbo of unbaptized babies. True, the popes have never given us an infallible definition on this topic but it is a longstanding tradition in the Church. However, the teachings of the Council of Trent on justification, the Roman Catechism’s teaching on baptism, and Pope Pius XII’s Allocution to a Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives (October 29, 1951) and the longstanding position of pre-Vatican II theologians all confirm the traditional teaching that deceased unbaptized infants will not see the Beatific Vision. But the Church’s traditional merciful teaching does give them a place of natural happiness in the limbo of children.

On the topic of hell, the Church never makes any statement whatsover on who has gone to hell and certainly neither should any of us. And the only statement the Church makes on who has gone to heaven is when it canonizes a saint and thus says that person is in heaven. On the other hand, the Church does give us the requirements for gaining heaven and avoiding hell, and we as Catholics must in all love and charity make those requirements known to all. It is not an act of love to tell anyone outside the Church he can be saved where he is, outside the Catholic Church. I would say again that any catechism that either says or implies that those outside the Church can be saved is not making an infallible statement and also contradicts the infallible statements of the Popes and Universal Magisterium of the Church.
A final comment, on true love of our non-Catholic neighbor: Saint Augustine says we must speak the truth to be a friend of anyone.

“A man must be a friend of truth before he can be a friend to any human being.” (Letter 155, 1.1.)

“He truly loves a friend who loves God in the friend, either because God is actually present in the friend or in order that God may be so present. This is true love. If we love another for another reason, we hate him more than we love him.” (Sermon 336.)

And how do we bring our non-Catholic friend into the one true saving Church? St. Paul says this in his letter to Timothy.

“[We desire] that we might attain our end in your correction, not by contention, and strife, and persecutions, but by kindly consolation, by friendly exhortation, by quiet discussion; as it is written, ‘The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle toward all men, apt to teach, patient; in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves’” (2 Timothy 2: 24-25).

God bless,

Bob

Posted by: Bob Wolfe at March 26, 2008 10:52 AM

Mary,

Despite my efforts to gently deal raise the topic of salvation for the unborn, I have clearly failed you. I apologize for my lack of sensitivity and consideration. If you believe my presence on this forum to be causing you more harm than good, it is I who should withdraw from this forum rather than you.

skelly wrote,

"To the same Father and his mercy you can with sure hope entrust your child"

Isn't this as close to saying that the Church believes these babies are in Heaven that you can get without saying it?

I would say that the official Church line is a definite maybe rather than a definite yes. The promises of Our Lord in the Scriptures and the official pronouncements of the Roman Catholic Church do not give firm indication one way or another. The Roman Catholic proclamation of the possibility of salvation for the unborn may closely resemble the Protestant idea of "uncovenanted mercies".

Though even under an interpretation as strict as Bob Wolfe's, the unborn probably have greater opportunity to escape hellfire than I do as they do not have any unconfessed mortal sin on their souls.

Posted by: Burnt Marshwiggle at March 28, 2008 2:35 PM

Dear Mary,

I hope you are still looking at this site. I’m very sorry for not addressing your comments earlier. I feel your sorrows very deeply. I lost my wife in the year 2000 after a long battle with cancer, and after 45 years of faithful marriage. We had five children but lost our last one, a little boy, to a fatal lung virus when he was 4 ½ years old. He died in his mother’s arms on the way to the emergency room. We almost lost our oldest son at child birth and his grandmother administered an emergency Baptism when he turned blue from lack of oxygen. The sorrow of death and illness is personally familiar.

All four of my children lost the faith when they went away to secular colleges. Only one is back in the Church today. The sorrow of lost faith is thus also familiar. It is deeper than the sorrow of physical illness and death, the more so since I blame myself for their not remaining in the Church. During the years when they needed me most I was consumed by my job and did not give them the time and attention they should have gotten from their father.

I stay close to them now and they are all very loving, often expressing their deep love for me. I have a firm hope in their returning to the Church before they die. God is extending to them the actual grace to return to the Church where they can receive Sanctifying grace. God gives actual grace to anyone who will respond to it. He gives sanctifying grace only to those in His one true Church. I hope to post a piece on the difference between actual grace and sanctifying grace. In order to understand outside the Church there is no salvation, and take it to heart, it is necesary to understand the difference between actual and sanctifying grace.

God bless you,

Bob

Posted by: Bob Wolfe at March 29, 2008 9:50 PM

This is a short study and meditation on GRACE, for busy people.

Study (15 minutes)

Saint Paul’s teaching on grace in his epistle to the Romans, especially chapters 5 through 7, is not easily understood but grace is essential for our spiritual welfare and salvation, and even our human welfare. We should want to know all we can about grace.

What is grace? The Church teaches that grace is a supernatural help, a gift given freely by our loving and merciful God. It can be of two varieties.

Actual grace is an aide from God to accomplish a specific good at a specific time. Even those not in the friendship of God can receive this type of grace while they are far away from Him. It does not remain habitually in the soul and, of itself, does not make the recipient a friend of God, although responding to actual graces can lead to friendship with God.

Sanctifying grace is a habitual grace that remains with a person and makes one a friend of God or a better friend of God. One must be a friend of God to get to heaven. In Catholic theology, being a friend of God is being “in the state of grace.”

Since grace is not easily understood, it will be helpful to first look at some of its effects. We begin by looking on a natural level far from grace. A basic principle for living a peaceful life is, “Admit the obvious.” And one must admit that, on a natural level, the beliefs of Christians can be difficult or may even seem humanly impossible to believe. For example, from a purely human or natural point of view, how is it possible to believe:

• there is life after death? It seems humanly impossible.

• a man could be born of a virgin, as Christ was?

• a dead body could rise from the grave as Christ did, as Lazarus did and as Christ said all human beings would do at the end of time?

• Christ defied gravity and ascended up into the sky before the very eyes of his followers?

• a Catholic priest can change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ?

• eternal happiness in heaven exists?

• the eternal fires of hell exist?

• God hears our prayers? Knows our innermost thoughts?

These things may seem humanly impossible, yes, but every truthful person must also admit that many things do exist that are impossible to explain on a human or natural level. Let’s look at two types of these phenomena.

The first type is material and human existence itself. What about,

• the universe? How was it created? From what? Why? By whom? It obviously exists but it’s creation from nothingness is humanly impossible to comprehend.

• life, especially human life? What is it? How did it begin? Why can’t man create it? It obviously exists but its creation from lifelessness is humanly impossible.

• consciousness? Man’s body is made from material elements, none of which exhibit consciousness. Saint Thomas’ theorem is, “The greater cannot come from the lesser.” How then can man acquire consciousness from elements having no consciousness? Consciousness obviously exists but is unexplainable on a natural level.

The second type of unexplainable, humanly impossible phenomena that obviously exists is miracles. Here are some examples.

• St. Joseph of Cupertino (also sometimes spelled Copertino) floated in ecstasy above the altar of the Church, defying the law of gravity when he said Mass or contemplated a statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary (see, St. Joseph Copertino, by Rev. Angelo Pastrovicchi, TAN Books).

• At Fatima, Portugal, in 1917, the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to three shepherd children and performed a miracle she had previously prophesied to the children. A crowd of 70,000 to 100,000 people witnessed the miracle. The sun darted about in the sky, emitted the colors of the rainbow and plunged terrifyingly toward the crowd. It instantly dried up the accumulated water of an all night rainfall for miles around, which required energy equivalent to the detonation of many of the largest nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Yet no one was injured. The account was recorded on the front page of the atheistic Communist controlled press. (see, Fatima The Great Sign, by Francis Johnston, TAN Books).

• Padre Pio, a Catholic priest and now Saint from Italy, had the stigmata, the five wounds of Christ in his hands, feet and side, and bled more than a cup of blood a day for more than 50 years until he died in the 1960s. There have been over 300 verified stigmatists in the Church. Padre Pio also miraculously raised a dead child to life, had the miracle of bilocation, being in more than one place at a time, and the gift of "reading hearts" so that he knew the sins of people before they confessed them to him in the confessional. In heaven he continues to perform miracles for people on earth who pray to him. (see, Padre Pio: the True Story by C. Bernard Rufin, Our Sunday Visitor, and The Stigmata and Modern Science, by Fr. Charles M. Carty, TAN Books).

We could go on and on with scientifically verified but humanly unexplainable miracles from the life of the Catholic Church and her Saints. The point I’m making is that by examining these two types of humanly observable phenomena, we must admit the obvious and say that many things are true and do exist that are humanly unexplainable and even humanly impossible.

Those who refuse to examine the evidence and acknowledge this fact are either intellectually dishonest or mentally deficient (or insane). Most people in the modern world who now live as if God does not exist are not mentally deficient or insane. On the contrary, it seems statistically true that in the modern world the more highly educated people are less likely to believe in God (although, among the Fathers and Doctors of the Church can be found the most highly educated men and women).

So why is it that relatively few people do believe and live as if God exists? If the highly educated do not believe, then the answer cannot be found in human reason alone. The answer must involve something else, something beyond or above the natural, something supernatural (super is the Latin word for above). The Church and the bible tell us the answer is supernatural grace. Grace, the tremendous gift offered freely to every human being by God, is the key to faith and belief. God gives sufficient grace to every human being to believe. Those who believe, respond to God’s supernatural grace. Those who don’t, don’t.

What does it mean to respond to God’s grace? It means taking what one might call an intelligent leap of faith into the mostly unknown, a decision to believe the humanly unbelievable, based upon the obvious existence of the phenomena described above. This is not blind faith but it is making a decision on partially veiled evidence. After all, no one needs faith to believe something humanly provable.

Christian Faith is a decision to believe the truth about the Triune God revealed by the God-Man Jesus Christ, and to live a morally upright life according to the commandments of God revealed by Him through the Church He established for that purpose. This faith decision is motivated first by grace from the Triune God, and second by the promises divinely revealed by Christ the God-man, namely, an eternal life of happiness in heaven for those who believe in Him and follow His commandments, and eternal punishment in hell for those who don’t.

Another basic principle of life is that we cannot love someone we do not know. And the more we know a person the more we can love that person. We cannot love God fervently unless we get to know Him well and we cannot get to know him well without studying the truth about Him. The bible is the true Word of God, given to mankind by the Church. The Church is the interpreter, arbiter and guardian of that truth (see Where Did We Get the Bible?)

The Church is the key to receiving and responding to God’s grace. Anyone may receive actual graces from God but only within His one true Church may one receive sanctifying grace, become a friend of God and inherit eternal happiness in heaven. The Sacraments of the Church are the channels of sanctifying grace.

We can know and believe that this is true by educating ourselves from a reliable source and having good will. The only reliable source regarding supernatural things is the Church established by Jesus Christ. What other source for supernatural things could be reliable? Good will is the desire to know the truth and follow wherever it leads. The Church and the bible tell us how to know the truth, but the Church is the only reliable source for interpretation of the bible. What other source for interpreting the bible could be reliable? Christ said, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Did He say, the gates of hell will not prevail against the bible? No. Did He say, the gates of hell will not prevail against the believer? No. We will be convinced of the necessity of the Church when we study The Foundation of Faith – A Bible Based Defense of Truth, the Church and the Dogma of Faith.

What are the effects of always trying to respond to God’s grace with good will? The effects are inner tranquility and peace of mind in this life, even amidst the most severe trials, and eternal happiness in the life to come. Knowing the truth about God’s sanctifying grace and responding with good will dispels even the fear of death.

Every person wants the effect of sanctifying grace but few are willing to use the means to receive it, namely, good will and a reliable source. Next time we’ll begin learning about the gift of grace taught by Saint Paul in his letter to the Romans. And we’ll be learning and relying on the wisdom of the Church, the only reliable source for the correct understanding of Paul’s sublime exposition on this tremendous, totally free gift of God, sanctifying grace, without which no one can get to heaven.

Meditation (15 minutes)

Do you pray? Saint Alphonsus de Liguori says those who pray will be saved; those who do not pray will not be saved. Pray like this:

Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief. I desire to be lifted up above my natural weaknesses and limitations. I desire the gift of inner peace and tranquility no matter what is happening around me. Show me the means by which I may attain that peace and happiness. Help me to make that leap of faith. Give me hope that I may have peace with and in you. Help me to first love you with my whole heart, mind, soul and strength, and then to love one of my neighbors as myself, today.

Lord, help me to think about and then write down one short, practical, detailed resolution that I can faithfully adhere to as a means of achieving the love and peace I desire today.

Here are some suggestions for making your resolution. Meditate on them. Make your resolution today and follow it for a week or more, examining yourself each day on how well you have kept your resolution.

Lord, show me my predominant fault, the most glaring defect or weakness preventing me from being the person You want me to be?

Lord, who is that neighbor You want me to love more fully today?

Show me one little way I can begin to amend my life in order to achieve my resolution.

My Lord and my God, I love You and I thank You for this time with You. Thank You for being with me. Help me stay with You today.

God bless,

Bob Wolfe

Posted by: Bob Wolfe at March 29, 2008 10:29 PM

Skelly,
Thank you for your kind note. My family did use this sad time to strengthen our family unity. We prayed a 9 day novena to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and had our house blessed. Emotionally and physically I'm doing better each day.

Burnt,
Thanks as well.

Mr Wolf,
I am sorry for so many losses in your life. You've taken many sorrowful journeys. Some of those journeys sound familiar to mine. In addition to 4 miscarriages (I truly love my babies the moment I learn of their existance), I lost a teenage sibling to a car accident when I was only 10. This in itself was devestating, but also resulted in years of living in a dysfunctional family. My parents stopped taking us to church for the rest of my childhood/youth. Instead of pulling together, my family grew apart. As my older siblings grew up, each one left the Catholic Church one by one and are all now in different protestant faiths. I am the only Catholic left in my family, even my parents left. I, like you, pray for their return to the Church. Yet, we differ in that I don't think my siblings will be denied salvation just for leaving the Church. I think the Catholic Church actually failed them. My parents are partly to blame for raising us more agnostic than Catholic, but also our neighborhood Catholic Church that we did go to for several years was severely deficient. The priest seemed cold and unloving. There was no fellowship, unity, or church functions of any kind. I understand why my siblings left. I probably would have left too if I hadn't married a Catholic man and rediscovered how beautiful the Mass and the Catholic Faith is.

Every now and then my siblings gang up on me for being Catholic, and I'm also guilty of having a I'm-in-the-right-religion attitude. Even if this is true, thinking this way still makes me feel bad. I think it's because we are always supposed to be humble, even when we're right.

When I step down off my " high horse", I realize that my siblings love the same Lord as I, worship the same Lord, and serve the same Lord. For people who don't believe good works matter, they sure do work hard. They do missionary/charity work, go to dangerous, poverty stricken neighborhoods and set up bible studies with children etc.... They work hard in serving the Lord. I also try to remember that unlike our faulty justice system here, the Lord's justice will be perfect. I'm not so sure about a catholic-stamp-of-approval admittance to heaven or vice versa. The Lord gives us a sample of His justice in mathew 5:31-46 when He separates people as a shepherd separates sheep and goats. "Whatsoever you do the the least of my brother that you do unto me...now enter into the home of my Father. ( I love that song)

On the subject of limbo, I don't think I can change your opinion, but I found this Catachism quote in my "Encyclopedia of catholic Doctrine"
"GOD HAS BOUND SALVATION TO THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM, BUT HE HIMSELF IS NOT BOUND BY HIS SACRAMENTS" (ccc 1257)

Thanks for the beautiful pray/meditation.

To All,
This is a great idea I wanted to pass on. My priest came to our home and did a memorial service for my 12 wk miscarried baby. He asked us to fix up the memorial area with a religious statue, flowers, bench etc... so that our family can visit, reflect, and pray. He suggests that all parents who've had miscarriages to set up such a place for their babies whether they have a body to bury or not. This teaches others, especially our children, that life is precious and is to be respected from the moment of conception, Every human being deserves a memorial of some sort. I thought it was a good idea to show and teach our kids a respect for life.

To all Catholics that regularly post on this site.
My priest reassured me again that my baby was baptized under the Catholic belief of BOD. I asked my priest if he believed my baby was in heaven and he said, "If I believed innocent babies didn't go to heaven, then I believe that I probably won't make it either."

Not only is limbo a sad belief, it's also a huge embarrassment that such an "hypothesis" is even associated with the Catholic Church. Out of the dozen + sympathy cards that I received from my Catholic friends, they all said basically something like, "Your baby is safe with our Lord etc..." Not one of them said, "Your baby is now in limbo etc..." Why? Because 99% of Catholics don't believe such a place exists. I doubt any of you believe it either. What's sadder than sad is that none of you came to the babies' defense. What's Skelly and others who are searching for Catholic Truths supposed to think? Very disappointing.

In Peace,
Mary

Posted by: Mary at April 13, 2008 1:06 AM

This is an addendum to my April 13th post.

I wanted to mention also that I noticed in previous posts that there seems to be a suggestion that those that believe that 1. Baptism of Desire is an official church teaching 2. limbo is not an official teaching and was only an hypothesis 3. There is salvation outside the Catholic Church, are liberal/modern/non-traditional Catholics. This can't be further from the truth when it comes to myself, my church parish, and my priest. We received permission from the Bishop over 10 years ago to leave our local parish church to be able to attend this specific church because of it's traditionalism. It's not unusual to see famlies of 6 - 12 children at this church. Many travel a great distance. Many women (young women) still wear mantillas (veils). We kneel to receive the Eucharist. Definitely not a modern/liberal/non-traditional parish church. The priest(msgr.) is the celebrant of the the Latin Mass each week. He likes things done a certain way... the old way... Definitely not a modern/liberal/non-traditional priest.

I'm sure there are some parishioners at our church that believe as Mr wolf does on these issues. Our church is very large, I certainly don't know everyone. I just wanted to stress that you can still be considered a conservative/traditional Catholic and NOT believe as Mr Wolf does on these particular issues.

Peace,
Mary

Posted by: Mary at April 14, 2008 9:52 AM

Mary

I have not been following this thread since my post was ignored. My condolences and prayers are with you.

There is so much verbage being spewed above that I chose to read your note re: your very wise priest. I totally agree with his positions... no wonder he is a Msgr.
Thank you for posting his insights.

In Love

when we were one

Posted by: when we were one at April 14, 2008 3:14 PM

WWWO,

Thanks for your sympathy and prayers. It's been difficult.

I feel very blessed to have Msgr. as our parish priest. His holiness radiates, and he is extremely intelligent. I think he is definitely pope quality.

Your post may have gotten lost in the "scuffle". Good hypothetical question. Maybe Mr Wolf will look back and respond. Although I think I know the answer....

Blessings,
Mary

Posted by: Mary at April 15, 2008 12:31 AM

Dear When we were one,

I apologize for not responding to your post before now. My time is limited because my wife and I live with and care for her ailing parents 24/7.

When I first read your post I didn’t want to get into the issue of who was most guilty of the “drawn and quartered” horror, Protestants or Catholics. I can only say that the Protestant followers of Henry VIII, Lord Cranmer and the English Protestant kings and queens that followed them had a great number of Catholic martyrs drawn and quartered. You can read about it on the following website.

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/02/312-english-catholic-martyrs-and-heroic.html

The following is a quote from that site.

Queen Elizabeth is often regarded as a tolerant queen, but she was arguably even more intolerant and bloodthirsty (towards Catholics) than her father, the Butcher-Tyrant Henry VIII. During her reign (17 November 1558 - 24 March 1603), there were 312 executions (most involving horrible prolonged tortures) or confessors' deaths rotting away or starving to death in prisons for the "treasonous crime" of being Catholic. That is counting English victims only. There were also about 210 Irish victims, for a grand total of 522 martyrs of the Catholic faith under "Good Queen Bess". Henry VIII averaged about 16 executions or horrible starving deaths of Catholics a year, after he started murdering them in 1534. Elizabeth averaged almost 12 per year for her entire 44 years and and 4 months reign. So she showed herself on average to be about 75% as savage and vicious as her illustrious father, in terms of the frequency and rate of the butchery.

As I’ve said previously, the Catholic Church makes no pronouncements on who has gone or will go to hell. We only tell the truth revealed by Christ and the Church he set up as the “pillar and bulwark of truth,” particularly the truth about what every person must believe and do to be saved. Outside the Catholic Church each person can have his own personal opinion about what is necessary to be saved but only in the Catholic Church can one find the infallible truth about it.

I’m disappointed that no one who has posted on this thread has attempted to refute any of the documentation in my article. People have given their own personal opinions and cited the opinion of a priest or even a catechism. But that can never refute the constant, traditional, infallible teaching of the popes I have quoted and the bible verses I have quoted.

So, with the Church, I would never say anyone is going to hell, because every person can respond to God’s grace and enter the Catholic Church to be saved. Just because there have been men in the Church who have done evil things, including even some popes, does not mean the infallible teachings of the Church are evil or untrue. The bible says God’s Church is holy and without blemish, as I quoted in my article:

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself, a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish. (Eph. 5:25-27)

The only way the Church can be composed of sinful men and yet be “holy and without blemish” is through the infallible truth guaranteed by Christ to the Church through Peter and his successors (Matthew 16:18-19, John 21:15, 17). This is according to the mind of God. This is God's way. This is the way defined in the Bible. This is the only way there can be one faith and one body in His Church as God commands. You can read more about it in my article.

Does the church you attend and believe in have any sinful members? Of course it does! We are all sinners! Then why would one refuse to join the Catholic Church because is has members who are sinners?

God bless,

Bob

Posted by: Bob Wolfe at April 18, 2008 5:49 PM

The following are excerpts from the address of the currently reigning Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, Pope Benedict XVI, at an ecumenical prayer service in St. Joseph's Parish church, NYC, on Friday, April 18, 2008. I offer them here because what the Vicar of Christ said today in NYC is very much like what I have been saying in this thread, for example, people no longer believe that transcendent religious truth exists, and, religious truth and sound doctrine must be the basis of our faith. Keep in mind that the Holy Father was speaking to non-Catholics at an ecumenical prayer service. Here are the pope’s very strong words to the gathering.

“… We have just listened to the scriptural passage in which Paul – a “prisoner for the Lord” – delivers his ardent appeal to the members of the Christian community at Ephesus. “I beg you,” he writes, “to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called … eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:1-3).

His words … call us to live in a way that bears witness to the “one heart and mind” (Acts 4:32), which has always been the distinguishing trait of Christian koinonia [koinoinia means the communion or fellowship of the faithful, especially in the early Church] (cf. Acts 2:42), and the force drawing others to join the community of believers so that they too might come to share in the “unsearchable riches of Christ” (Eph 3:8; cf. Acts 2:47; 5:14).

… of grave concern is the spread of a secularist ideology that undermines or even rejects transcendent truth. The very possibility of divine revelation, and therefore of Christian faith, is often placed into question by cultural trends widely present in academia, the mass media and public debate. For these reasons, a faithful witness to the Gospel is as urgent as ever.

Fundamental Christian beliefs and practices are sometimes changed within communities … Communities consequently give up the attempt to act as a unified body, choosing instead to function according to the idea of “local options”. Somewhere in this process the need for diachronic koinonia – communion with the Church in every age – is lost, just at the time when the world is losing its bearings and needs a persuasive common witness to the saving power of the Gospel (cf. Rom 1:18-23).

… In John’s Gospel, we are told that Jesus prayed to his Father that his disciples might be one, “just as you are in me and I am in you” (Jn 17:21). This passage reflects the unwavering conviction of the early Christian community that its unity was both caused by, and is reflective of, the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This, in turn, suggests that the internal cohesion of believers was based on the sound integrity of their doctrinal confession (cf. 1 Tim 1:3-11).

… The nucleus of Paul’s preaching and that of the early Church was none other than Jesus Christ, and “him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2). But this proclamation had to be guaranteed by the purity of normative doctrine expressed in creedal formulae – symbola – which articulated the essence of the Christian faith and constituted the foundation for the unity of the baptized (cf. 1 Cor 15:3-5; Gal 1:6-9;

My dear friends, the power of the kerygma has lost none of its internal dynamism. Yet we must ask ourselves whether its full force has not been attenuated by a relativistic approach to Christian doctrine similar to that found in secular ideologies, which, in alleging that science alone is “objective”, relegate religion entirely to the subjective sphere of individual feeling. Scientific discoveries, and their application through human ingenuity, undoubtedly offer new possibilities for the betterment of humankind. This does not mean, however, that the “knowable” is limited to the empirically verifiable, nor religion restricted to the shifting realm of “personal experience”.

For Christians to accept this faulty line of reasoning would lead to the notion that there is little need to emphasize objective truth in the presentation of the Christian faith, for one need but follow his or her own conscience and choose a community that best suits his or her individual tastes. The result is seen in the continual proliferation of communities which often eschew [avoid, shun or bypass] institutional structures and minimize the importance of doctrinal content for Christian living.

… Even within the ecumenical movement, Christians may be reluctant to assert the role of doctrine for fear that it would only exacerbate rather than heal the wounds of division. Yet a clear, convincing testimony to the salvation wrought for us in Christ Jesus has to be based upon the notion of normative apostolic teaching: a teaching which indeed underlies the inspired word of God and sustains the sacramental life of Christians today.

Only by “holding fast” to sound teaching (2 Thess 2:15; cf. Rev 2:12-29) will we be able to respond to the challenges that confront us in an evolving world. Only in this way will we give unambiguous testimony to the truth of the Gospel and its moral teaching. This is the message which the world is waiting to hear from us.”

That’s the end of my excerpt from the Pope’s talk..

The pope said the faith of Christians cannot be based on “individual feeling” or “personal experience” but “on the sound integrity of their doctrinal confession.” He said Christians cannot “[avoid, shun or bypass] institutional structures and minimize the importance of doctrinal content for Christian living.” He said that Christians (I say, especially Catholics) must not “be reluctant to assert the role of doctrine for fear that it would only exacerbate rather than heal the wounds of division.” “This is the message which the world is waiting to hear from us.”

My dearest brothers and sisters in Christ, listen to Christ’s currently reigning Vicar on Earth. He’s telling us that “transcendent religious truth exists.” And therefore listen to the transcendent religious truth declared in the name of Christ by His previously reigning Vicars who stated clearly, explicitly, repeatedly and infallibly that it is necessary to be baptized and die in the state of sanctifying grace within the Catholic Church in order to see the Beatific Vision. Re-examine the documentation in my article, especially the version for Catholics. If you want to convince me, or yourself, that I am wrong, don’t rely on feelings or sentimental theology, don’t rely a quote from a fallible modern catechism, but give me the teaching of one solitary pope who has defined infallibly that someone who dies outside the Catholic Church, without the Sacrament of water baptism (and thus without sanctifying grace in his soul) can see the Beatific Vision. You will never find such a definition because such a definition would contradict infallibly defined truth. That would be absurd and impossible..

Only truth can be satisfying. Only truth can be consoling. Only truth can allay fears and bring peace of mind. Only the “pillar and bulwark of truth,” the Catholic Church, can teach infallible transcendent truth.

Skelly said at one point in this thread, “There really seems to be some confusion and disagreement that seems to revolve around pre-Vatican II