Blushing bishops
They seem to seek out politically-minded formulations that will allow them to escape secular criticism, rather than boldly proclaiming what the Church has always believed and believes now.
They very apparently fear men more than God. I believe our Blessed Lord had some words for those who fear men more than God.
by Doug Lawrence
Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you. (Matthew 7:6)
The violent deconstruction of the Catholic Church during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s was the literal fulfillment of the above scripture, as the post-Vatican II revolutionaries were allowed to rage virtually unrestrained – tearing down, trampling and desecrating all that was holy, within the Catholic Church.
For the most part, obedient and faithful Catholics were taken aback, not knowing what to make of it all. And by the time things became clearer, it was already too late. In hindsight, it’s evident that the majority of Catholics chose to quit, rather than fight. That’s a real shame, since there’s no medals for deserters – in either the military services – or the Church Militant!
Now, after a short, moderate respite, we have a very popular pope, “cut” from Post-Vatican II revolutionary cloth – who eschews tradition, has little regard for dogma, and claims to be a humble man of peace – all the while shamelessly plotting a final and definitive coup de grâce to what is still barely recognizable as the venerable Roman Catholic Church. Should he and his minions actually succeed in this pernicious work, the result will be a spiritual and physical holocaust of epic proportions, possibly culminating in nothing less than the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ.
Ladies and gentlemen, it’s time to start paying very close attention – since you don’t want to be on the wrong side of things when the Master finally returns!
And this is charity: That we walk according to his commandments.
For this is the commandment that, as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in the same: For many seducers are gone out into the world who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a seducer and an antichrist.
Look to yourselves, that you lose not the things which you have wrought: but that you may receive a full reward.
Whosoever revolts and continues not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that continues in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son.
If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you. For he that saith unto him: God speed you, communicates with his wicked works.
(2 John 1:6-11)
Jesus is an expert healer of the blind – spiritual and otherwise
by Doug Lawrence
The only proper way for a faithful Catholic to disagree with authentic church teachings is to go to confession, apologize to God, receive absolution, and humbly leave the confessional spiritually renewed, with a firm purpose of amendment.
Next, in order to successfully mend our ways and reform our errant conscience, we undertake a thorough study of the relevant portions of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, coupled with a careful review of all related church documents.
This … along with full, faithful and regular participation in all the other work, worship, sacraments and devotions of the Catholic Church, will serve to properly identify and clarify all of the pertinent issues involved.
From that point forward, faith and reason, along with a bit of help from other good, faithful, and well-educated Catholics (educated in authentic, traditional Catholicism … not the new, phony versions) will serve to order the struggle so as to (eventually) properly form the conscience, in the light of all God’s revealed truth.
The process may well take years, but what do we have to do that is more important?
The writings of the Saints confirm that spiritual struggle (always in good faith and always for the right reasons) is probably the very best way of eventually achieving Heaven.
Those who have managed to overcome serious personal shortcomings with the help of God’s grace, know that this is absolutely true … while those who prefer to disagree need only remember that denial is not just a river in Egypt!
Visit the blogroll (links) section of this website for all the necessary Catholic educational resources. Seek out Jesus Christ, the source and summit of our Christian existence, and encounter him regularly and personally, in and through the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Then … expect Jesus to begin to more fully reveal himself … his inestimable love … and his truth … to you … in many wonderful ways.
Pope Paul VI says “all of the Council” not only the ‘spirit of the Council’, not only the radical hermeneutic of rupture with Catholic Tradition. Now here, the authentic interpretation of the Second Vatican Council is given by Pope Paul VI and not Tizio, Caio, Sempronio nor Don Cantone (equivalent of: Tom, Dick or Harry), nor myself.
Furthermore, Pope Paul VI urges the “modern humanists” that is, the atheists, who “reject the truths” of supernatural Faith, which transcend human reason “ to give credit” to “all of the Council” for this “religion of man that makes himself God” on his own strength without the free gift of sanctifying grace.
But if “all of the Council”, and not its hazardous interpretation or its “spirit” can and must please the atheist or pantheists, it cannot please the Christians, who believe in the supernatural truths revealed by God which distinguish the creature from the Creator.
As we can deduce from what Pope Paul VI said, it is the text itself of the Council which is in rupture with the Catholic Faith and as such cannot be accepted. The heart of the “problem at the present time” is really the foolish hope of reconciling the irreconcilable: theocentrism and anthropocentrism. The Roman–Rite Mass and the “Novus Ordo Missae”, Divine-Apostolic Tradition and Vatican II.
Never one to simply collapse under pressure or discouragement I took up the challenge to assemble the Biblical evidence as to Jesus’ Divinity. It is remarkably rich and consistent throughout all the New Testament Books as you shall see. In this article I give the scripture citations for the most part but cannot include most of the texts in the article since they are so numerous that they would eclipse the article itself. Perhaps at some point in the future I will publish a version with all the citations spelled out. For now, let these suffice to show forth a glorious Scriptural affirmation of the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He is Lord.
1. Clearly this is a dogma of the Faith (de Fide). The divinity and divine Sonship of Jesus is expressed in all the creeds. This is perhaps most clearly stated in the Athanasian Creed (Quicumque):”…we believe and confess that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is God and man. He is God begotten of the substance of the Father before all ages and man born in time of the substance of His Mother. He is Perfect God and perfect man.”
2. There are many passages in the Old Testament that express the qualities of the coming Messiah, among them are some very exalted titles:
A brief excerpt:
APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF
POPE PIUS XII
MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS
DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION
November 1, 1950
39. We must remember especially that, since the second century, the Virgin Mary has been designated by the holy Fathers as the new Eve, who, although subject to the new Adam, is most intimately associated with him in that struggle against the infernal foe which, as foretold in the protoevangelium,(44) would finally result in that most complete victory over the sin and death which are always mentioned together in the writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles.(45) Consequently, just as the glorious resurrection of Christ was an essential part and the final sign of this victory, so that struggle which was common to the Blessed Virgin and her divine Son should be brought to a close by the glorification of her virginal body, for the same Apostle says: “When this mortal thing hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory.”(46)
40. Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination,(47) immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages.(48)
Read the entire Vatican document
More on this from Ann Barnhardt
More about The Assumption at
Bob Stanley’s “The Catholic Treasure Chest”
Blushing bishops
They seem to seek out politically-minded formulations that will allow them to escape secular criticism, rather than boldly proclaiming what the Church has always believed and believes now.
They very apparently fear men more than God. I believe our Blessed Lord had some words for those who fear men more than God.
Although it is very difficult for those who see Catholicism through political lenses to grasp this, popes are not like presidents or state governors, and doctrine is not like public policy. Which means that a change of papal “administration” does not—indeed cannot—mean a change of Catholic “views.” Doctrine, as the Church understands it, is not a matter of anyone’s “views,” but of settled understandings of the truth of things.
Nor are popes free agents who govern by the seat of their pants, if you‘ll permit the phrase. Prior to the completion of Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Pope Paul VI proposed adding to that seminal document a sentence stating that the pope is “accountable to the Lord alone”—an effort, I suspect, to protect papal authority and freedom of action from potential civil or ecclesiastical encroachments. But the council’s Theological Commission rejected Pope Paul’s proposed amendment, noting that “the Roman Pontiff is . . . bound to revelation itself, to the fundamental structure of the Church, to the sacraments, to the definitions of earlier Councils, and (to) other obligations too numerous to mention.”
Those “other obligations” include honoring the truth of things built into the world and into us. At an academic conference years ago, a distinguished Catholic philosopher remarked (perhaps hyperbolically) that “If the pope said that ‘2+2 = 5,’ I’d believe him.” An even more distinguished Catholic philosopher gave the correct, and far more Catholic, response: “If the Holy Father said that ‘2+2 = 5,’ I would say publicly, ‘Perhaps I have misunderstood His Holiness’s meaning.’ Privately, I would pray for his sanity.”
by Doug Lawrence
Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you. (Matthew 7:6)
The violent deconstruction of the Catholic Church during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s was the literal fulfillment of the above scripture, as the post-Vatican II revolutionaries were allowed to rage virtually unrestrained – tearing down, trampling and desecrating all that was holy, within the Catholic Church.
For the most part, obedient and faithful Catholics were taken aback, not knowing what to make of it all. And by the time things became clearer, it was already too late. In hindsight, it’s evident that the majority of Catholics chose to quit, rather than fight. That’s a real shame, since there’s no medals for deserters – in either the military services – or the Church Militant!
Now, after a short, moderate respite, we have a very popular pope, “cut” from Post-Vatican II revolutionary cloth – who eschews tradition, has little regard for dogma, and claims to be a humble man of peace – all the while shamelessly plotting a final and definitive coup de grâce to what is still barely recognizable as the venerable Roman Catholic Church. Should he and his minions actually succeed in this pernicious work, the result will be a spiritual and physical holocaust of epic proportions, possibly culminating in nothing less than the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ.
Ladies and gentlemen, it’s time to start paying very close attention – since you don’t want to be on the wrong side of things when the Master finally returns!
And this is charity: That we walk according to his commandments.
For this is the commandment that, as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in the same: For many seducers are gone out into the world who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a seducer and an antichrist.
Look to yourselves, that you lose not the things which you have wrought: but that you may receive a full reward.
Whosoever revolts and continues not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that continues in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son.
If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you. For he that saith unto him: God speed you, communicates with his wicked works.
(2 John 1:6-11)
The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Henry Denzinger, (13th Edition) 2004.
(XIVa) The souls of those who die in the state of grace, but with venial faults or temporal penalties not yet satisfied are detained in Purgatory, concerning the existence of which it is certain from scripture; which does not consist in only the fears of one about to die; but in satisfactory penalties which the souls suffer while they are tormented by fire, secure nevertheless, concerning their state of salvation, but are outside the state of merit, they do not sin by seeking rest or by abhorring the penalties; they are helped by the prayers, satisfactory acts, and almsgiving of the living, by indulgences, especially by the sacrifice of the Mass.
References – Denzinger numbers:
(456) Council of Lyons I, 1245, (Reaffirmed the name Purgatory, the nature of the punishment, and that suffrage by the living may be beneficially applied to the souls there.)
(570s) Re: Purgatory – “Tortured by fire for a time” Pope Clement VI, Letter, Sept. 20, 1351.
Re: Purgatorial fire
At the Council of Florence, Bessarion argued against the existence of real purgatorial fire, and the Greeks were assured that the Roman Church had never issued any dogmatic decree on this subject. In the West the belief in the existence of real fire is common. Augustine (Enarration on Psalm 37, no. 3) speaks of the pain which purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life, “gravior erit ignis
quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita” (P.L., col. 397). Gregory the Great speaks of those who after this life “will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames,” and he adds “that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life” (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment
from fire. “Una poena damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus secundum quod ab igne punientur”, and St. Bonaventure not only agrees with St. Thomas but adds (IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1, q. ii) that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life; “Gravior est omni temporali poena. quam modo sustinet anima carni conjuncta”. How this fire affects the souls of the departed the Doctors do not know, and in such matters it is well to heed the warning of the Council of Trent when it commands the bishops “to exclude from their preaching difficult and subtle questions which tend not to edification’, and from the discussion of which there is no increase either in piety or devotion” (Sess. XXV, “De Purgatorio”).
(693) Council of Florence, 1438, (The truly penitent who have departed in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction are cleansed after death in purgatorial punishment, etc., etc.)
(778) Lateran Council V, 1512 – Refuting the errors of Martin Luther: Souls in Purgatory are indeed assured of salvation, and are indeed beyond the state of meriting and/or increasing in charity. Here is no sin in their abhorring punishment or seeking rest.
Adendum Re: Merit
In the Bull “Exurge Domine” Leo X condemns the proposition (n. 38) “Nec probatum est ullis aut rationibus aut scripturis ipsas esse extra statum merendi aut augendae caritatis” (There is no proof from reason or Scripture that they [the souls in purgatory] cannot merit or increase in charity). For them “the night has come in which no man can labour”, and Christian tradition has always considered that only in this life can man work unto the profit of his own soul. The Doctors of the Middle Ages while agreeing that this life is the time for merit and increase of grace, still some with St. Thomas seemed to question whether or not there might be some non-essential reward which the souls in purgatory might merit (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a. 3). Bellarmine believes that in this matter St. Thomas changed his opinion and refers to a statement of St. Thomas (“De Malo”, q. vii, a. 11). Whatever may be the mind of the Angelic Doctor, theologians agree that no merit is possible in purgatory, and if objection be urged that the souls there merit by their prayers, Bellarmine says that such prayers avail with God because of merit already acquired “Solum impetrant ex meritis praeteritis quomodo nunc sancti orando) pro nobis impetrant licet non merendo” (They avail only in virtue of past merits as those who are now saints intercede for us not by merit but by prayer). (loc. cit. II, cap. iii).
(840) Council of Trent, 1545, Canon 30 (Temporal punishment for sin may remain, even after justification by grace.) See also the Decree Concerning Purgatory, Session XXV, December 3, and 4, 1563.
(983) Decree Concerning Purgatory
Since the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, following the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught in sacred councils and very recently in this ecumenical council that there is a purgatory,[1] and that the souls there detained are aided by the suffrages of the faithful and chiefly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar, the holy council commands the bishops that they strive diligently to the end that the sound doctrine of purgatory, transmitted by the Fathers and sacred councils,[2] be believed and maintained by the faithful of Christ, and be everywhere taught and preached. The more difficult and subtle questions, however, and those that do not make for edification and from which there is for the most part no increase in piety, are to be excluded from popular instructions to uneducated people.[3] Likewise, things that are uncertain or that have the appearance of falsehood they shall not permit to be made known publicly and discussed.
But those things that tend to a certain kind of curiosity or superstition, or that savor of filthy lucre, they shall prohibit as scandals and stumbling-blocks to the faithful. The bishops shall see to it that the suffrages of the living, that is, the sacrifice of the mass,[4] prayers, alms and other works of piety which they have been accustomed to perform for the faithful departed, be piously and devoutly discharged in accordance with the laws of the Church, and that whatever is due on their behalf from testamentary bequests or other ways, be discharged by the priests and ministers of the Church and others who are bound to render this service not in a perfunctory manner, but diligently and accurately.
(998) Council of Trent – Reaffirms the existence of Purgatory and that souls detained there are aided by the prayers of the faithful. The use of indulgences is affirmed and especially salutary.
(2147a) Pope Pius X, Letter: “Ex Quo” December 26, 1910 – No doubt that the sacred dogmas on Purgatory and the Blessed Virgin Mary were acknowledged by the holy men of earlier years.
See also, Denzinger 427, 464, 530, 535, 723a, 729, 780, 998, 1542
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, 4th Edition, May 1960
Supporting texts: 314, 321, 443, 482-85
From the Roman Catechism, published following the Council of Trent
… the fire of purgatory, in which the souls of just men are cleansed by a temporary punishment, in order to be admitted into their eternal country, into which nothing defiled entereth (cf. Rev. 21:27). The truth of this doctrine, founded, as holy Councils declare, on Scripture, and confirmed by Apostolic tradition, demands exposition from the pastor, all the more diligent and frequent, because we live in times when men endure not sound doctrine. Prayers for the dead, that they may be liberated from the fire of purgatory, are derived from Apostolic teaching. We also beg of God … that we be not sentenced to endure the fire of purgatory, from which we piously and devoutly implore that others may be liberated.
Catechism of Council of Trent, The Lord’s Prayer, Seventh Petition
“We also beg of God that we be not cut off by a sudden death; that we provoke not His anger against us; that we be not condemned to suffer the punishments reserved for the wicked; that we be not sentenced to endure the fire of purgatory, from which we piously and devoutly implore that others may be liberated.”
Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV in Preparation for the Holy Year, 1749
“The faithful must be fully aware that sin and its eternal punishment are remitted by the Sacrament of Penance if one makes proper use of it; however the entire temporal punishment is very seldom taken away. This must be removed either by satisfactory works in this life or by the fire of Purgatory after death.”
Encyclical On Proclaiming a Universal Jubilee by Pope Leo XII, 1824
“You must also discuss carefully how much efficacy there is in indulgences; how great is the fruit of remission, not only of the canonical but also of the temporal punishment due for sins; and finally, how much aid from the treasure of merits from Christ and the saints may be applied to those who died truly penitent before they had made adequate satisfaction for their sins. Their souls must be purified in the fires of purgatory so that entry into the eternal fatherland may open to them.”
Baltimore Catechism No. 3
LESSON 37 – ON THE LAST JUDGMENT & RESURRECTION, HELL
PURGATORY & HEAVEN
Q. 1381. What is Purgatory?
A. Purgatory is the state in which those suffer for a time who die guilty of venial sins, or without having satisfied for the punishment due to their sins.
Q. 1382. Why is this state called Purgatory?
A. This state is called Purgatory because in it the souls are purged or purified from all their stains; and it is not, therefore, a permanent or lasting state for the soul.
Q. 1383. Are the souls in Purgatory sure of their salvation?
A. The souls in Purgatory are sure of their salvation, and they will enter heaven as soon as they are completely purified and made worthy to enjoy that presence of God which is called the Beatific Vision.
Q. 1384. Do we know what souls are in Purgatory, and how long they have to remain there?
A. We do not know what souls are in Purgatory nor how long they have to remain there; hence we continue to pray for all persons who have died apparently in the true faith and free from mortal sin. They are called the faithful departed.
Q. 1385. Can the faithful on earth help the souls in Purgatory?
A. The faithful on earth can help the souls in Purgatory by their prayers, fasts, alms, deeds; by indulgences, and by having Masses said for them.
Q. 1386. Since God loves the souls in Purgatory, why does He punish them?
A. Though God loves the souls in Purgatory, He punishes them because His holiness requires that nothing defiled may enter heaven and His justice requires that everyone be punished or rewarded according to what he deserves.
Most recently, the Second Vatican Council in its Constitution on the Church renewed the teaching of previous councils on eschatology, including the doctrine of purgatory. “This sacred Council,” it declared, “accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who, having died, are still being purified….At the same time, in conformity with our own pastoral interests, we urge all concerned, if any abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there, to do what is in their power to remove or correct them, and to restore all things to a fuller praise of Christ and of God” (Chapter VII, No. 51).
Pope Paul VI – From the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA whereby the revision of Sacred Indulgences is promulgated. January 1, 1967:
“It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God’s sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or “purifying” punishments.
Therefore it has always been the conviction of the faithful that the paths of evil are fraught with many stumbling blocks and bring adversities, bitterness and harm to those who follow them.”
Current Edition: The Catechism of the Catholic Church
III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY
1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608
1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: “Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:
Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611
1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.[83]
1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man.”[84]
1475 In the communion of saints, “a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things.”[86] In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin.
Editor’s note: It will be interesting to see what Pope Francis has to say about all this.
The church has long been criticized as “too dogmatic.” Demands are constantly made that it change its 2,000-year-old teachings on marriage, family, sexuality, morality and other matters related to the truth about human beings. But even if others do not agree, the church understands that what it proclaims is revealed truth — the Word of God.
The church’s teachings are timeless. They cannot be changed, even though adherence may be upsetting to some. That the church is built on a rock with fixed beliefs is a positive feature, both because it can withstand the shifting winds of public opinion and because of the cherished content of our faith itself, which fosters love among Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
Skip the article if you like, but the reader comments are worth a look.
Some Catholics don’t know everything, and if they did, they may have forgotten it.
Which is why we have a catechism to guide us, and explains why the Church instructs the faithful by way of encyclicals and Apostolic exhortations and such – documents conveniently found online at the Vatican website BTW.
For instance, questions about what does the Church really say about same sex marriage can be answered with a Google search for Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith on same sex marriage… voila! You have a clear, concise answer:
Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon, even in those countries where it does not present significant legal issues. It gives rise to greater concern in those countries that have granted or intend to grant – legal recognition to homosexual unions, which may include the possibility of adopting children.
Historically speaking, the idea that the written Word of God is formally sufficient for all things related to faith and practice, such that anyone of normal intelligence and reasonably good intentions could read it and deduce from it what is necessary for orthodoxy and orthopraxy, is not a position that I see reflected in the writings of the early Church fathers. While there are plenty of statements in their writings that speak in glowing terms about the qualitative uniqueness of Scripture, those statements, for them, do not do away with the need for Scripture to be interpreted by the Church in a binding and authoritative way when necessary.
This discovery in the church fathers is unsurprising if the same position can be found in the New Testament itself, which I now believe it can. To cite but one example, the Church in her earliest days was confronted with a question that Jesus had not addressed with any specificity or directness, namely, the question of Gentile inclusion in the family of God. In order to answer this question, the apostles and elders of the Church gathered together in council to hear all sides and reach a verdict. What is especially interesting about Luke’s account of the Jerusalem Council is the role that Scripture played, as well as the nature of the verdict rendered.
Concerning the former, James’s citation of Amos is curious in that the passage in the prophet seems to have little to do with the matter at hand, and yet James cites Amos’s words about the tent of David being rebuilt to demonstrate that full Gentile membership in the Church fulfills that prophecy. Moreover, Scripture functioned for the Bishop of Jerusalem not as the judge that settled the dispute, but rather as a witness that testified to what settled it, namely, the judgment of the apostles and elders.
Rather than saying, “We agree with Scripture,” he says in effect, “Scripture agrees with us” (v. 15, 19). And finally, when the decision is ultimately reached, it is understood by the apostles and elders not as an optional and fallible position with which the faithful may safely disagree if they remain biblically unconvinced, but rather as an authoritative and binding pronouncement that was bound in heaven even as it was on earth (v. 28).
Despite some superficial similarities, no existing Protestant denomination with an operating norm of Sola Scriptura can replicate the dynamic, or claim the authority of the Jerusalem Council (or of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon for that matter).
The fact that the Bible’s own example of how Church courts operate was hamstrung by Protestantism’s view of biblical authority was something I began to find disturbingly ironic.
Jesus is an expert healer of the blind – spiritual and otherwise
by Doug Lawrence
The only proper way for a faithful Catholic to disagree with authentic church teachings is to go to confession, apologize to God, receive absolution, and humbly leave the confessional spiritually renewed, with a firm purpose of amendment.
Next, in order to successfully mend our ways and reform our errant conscience, we undertake a thorough study of the relevant portions of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, coupled with a careful review of all related church documents.
This … along with full, faithful and regular participation in all the other work, worship, sacraments and devotions of the Catholic Church, will serve to properly identify and clarify all of the pertinent issues involved.
From that point forward, faith and reason, along with a bit of help from other good, faithful, and well-educated Catholics (educated in authentic, traditional Catholicism … not the new, phony versions) will serve to order the struggle so as to (eventually) properly form the conscience, in the light of all God’s revealed truth.
The process may well take years, but what do we have to do that is more important?
The writings of the Saints confirm that spiritual struggle (always in good faith and always for the right reasons) is probably the very best way of eventually achieving Heaven.
Those who have managed to overcome serious personal shortcomings with the help of God’s grace, know that this is absolutely true … while those who prefer to disagree need only remember that denial is not just a river in Egypt!
Visit the blogroll (links) section of this website for all the necessary Catholic educational resources. Seek out Jesus Christ, the source and summit of our Christian existence, and encounter him regularly and personally, in and through the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Then … expect Jesus to begin to more fully reveal himself … his inestimable love … and his truth … to you … in many wonderful ways.
Pope Benedict XVI in Light of the World-Conversations with Peter Seewald says Jews do not have to convert in the present times. Pope Benedict XVI says that he has revised the ancient liturgy (on Good Friday) so that it does not say that Jews need to convert in the present times but that they will convert in a future time (eschatological time).
So he is saying that he has revised the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews which now says Jews do not have to convert in the present times.(1) This is a rejection of the Nicene Creed in which we pray “I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin”.Jews do need the baptism of water in the present time.
The pope is saying that without the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith, Jews in general, are saved in their religion.
Vatican Council II mentions the possibility of non Catholics being saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience etc. It does not state that they are saved in general in their religion. Since in general the normal means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.(AG 7).
The Vatican received a threat from the Chief Rabbinate and the Government of Israel over the issue of the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of Jews it was reported in the secular newspapers here.There was the threat of war. The pope diffused the tension with a front page report in the L’Osservatore Romano in which it was said that Jews do not have to convert in the present time.
This message was repeated in Light of the World-Conversations with Peter Seewald (Ignatius Press). The pope told Seewald that there is only one means of salvation and all who are saved are saved through Jesus.True. However this can also be a partial truth and denial of a defined dogma offensive to the Jewish Left. Offensive to the pro-Sodom and Gomorrah Zionists posing as Jews.Yes all those who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church, Jesus’ Mystical Body, however every one needs to enter the Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,Dominus Iesus 20 etc).
The pope and his Curia have put away the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which Pope Pius XII called an ‘infallible teaching’.
Read more from Lionel Andrades
Editor’s note: Let’s be fair and rational: If Jews need not convert, why should anyone else?
The Old Covenant is no more, and even if the Old Law still applied, it never had the power to save a soul. That places Jews and (non-Christian) gentiles in exactly the same position of eternal jeopardy … with the only hope for salvation being Jesus Christ and his (universal) Catholic Church.
If this is the “New Evangelization” we’re all in big, big trouble!
The recurring post-Vatican II theme, “God Is Love” seems to have led a large cadre of liberal Catholics, including many priests and bishops, into assuming (and therefore teaching) that an all-loving God would most certainly relax his rules and violate his own personal standards in order to give a “pass” to those who, for whatever reasons, have failed to become a member of the Catholic Church.
These same folks also maintain that it would be totally illogical for a loving God to act in any other way, arguing that anyone might be assured of salvation, even if they happen to be Pagan, Jew, (Democrat?) atheist, agnostic, etc. … so long as they follow the dictates of their conscience and attempt to live a good life. They even go so far as to infer that we can “bank” on it.
On the traditional Catholic side, we have the infallible, thrice confirmed Catholic dogma “EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS” (Outside the Church There Is No Salvation) which has remained “on the books” and unchanged for over 500 years, as formally defined at the 15th century Council of Florence and confirmed by at least two later popes.
The documents of Vatican II were crafted to be so inexact as to provide little confirmation of traditional Catholic dogma, so here we are … still arguing about something which was actually settled centuries ago.
With modernist bishops generally in charge, it remains risky for any Catholic to challenge the liberal view on this matter. Fortunately, in spite of all this, a number of the faithful are willing to step up and speak the whole truth.
It should also be worth noting what the Bible says about Jesus Christ and love:
“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)
Shouldn’t that be enough for these guys?
Pope Paul VI says “all of the Council” not only the ‘spirit of the Council’, not only the radical hermeneutic of rupture with Catholic Tradition. Now here, the authentic interpretation of the Second Vatican Council is given by Pope Paul VI and not Tizio, Caio, Sempronio nor Don Cantone (equivalent of: Tom, Dick or Harry), nor myself.
Furthermore, Pope Paul VI urges the “modern humanists” that is, the atheists, who “reject the truths” of supernatural Faith, which transcend human reason “ to give credit” to “all of the Council” for this “religion of man that makes himself God” on his own strength without the free gift of sanctifying grace.
But if “all of the Council”, and not its hazardous interpretation or its “spirit” can and must please the atheist or pantheists, it cannot please the Christians, who believe in the supernatural truths revealed by God which distinguish the creature from the Creator.
As we can deduce from what Pope Paul VI said, it is the text itself of the Council which is in rupture with the Catholic Faith and as such cannot be accepted. The heart of the “problem at the present time” is really the foolish hope of reconciling the irreconcilable: theocentrism and anthropocentrism. The Roman–Rite Mass and the “Novus Ordo Missae”, Divine-Apostolic Tradition and Vatican II.
When I contact the Catechetics and Liturgy Office in the diocese of Sydney they too assume that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are an exception to the dogma. So widespread is this issue in the Church.
From the liberals to the SSPX Holy Cross seminary in Australia all assume that there is a visible baptism of desire.
The Archbishop assumed the baptism of desire was visible and so contradicted the dogma outside the church there is no salvation. He assumed that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance were known to us and so it contradicts Fr. Leonard Feeney’s traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Since the time of the Archbishop Cardinal Richard Cushing it is assumed there are two interpretations of the dogma. 1)the rigorist interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney, the popes and saints and 2) the non rigorist interpretation. The non rigorist interpretation says everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. It is assumed here that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. So this is a ‘new ‘interpretation.
We now know that there is only one interpretation of the dogma, the centuries old interpretation since the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not known to us.
It is assumed that Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance, good conscience) is an exception to the dogma. This would be assuming that those saved in invincible ignorance are defacto known to us in particular cases. We know that they are not visible and explicitly known to us but known only to God. So they are not exceptions to the dogma.
De facto, everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation. De jure in principle those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known only to God. The baptism of water is explicit. The baptism of desire is implicit.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was addressed directly to the Archbishop of Boston. It was critical of the Archbshop. It mentioned ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’. The dogma does not mention any exceptions. The dogma also indicates, like Fr. Leonard Feeney, that everyone needs to explicitly enter the Church for salvation.
Today the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), Eternal Word Television Network, Catholic Answers, Society of St. Pius X, Pontifical seminaries and universities, sedevacantists, priests, nuns and lay Catholics are all unknowingly following the legacy of the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits of Boston College.
They assume the baptism of desire etc is visible and so is an exception to the dogma.
Probably many readers here too would make the same assumption.
The book the Bread of Life mentions ‘the catechumens’ who die without the baptism of water.
Unlike the Catechetical and the Liturgy Office of the diocese of Sydney, Australia, the Jesuits there and the SSPX Holy Cross Seminary they do not consider the baptism of desire (followed by the baptism of water for them) as exceptions to the dogma.
The Bread of Life was published after the excommunication and before the lifting of the excommunication. He was not required to recant or change his writing.
In The Bread of Life he recognizes that a genuine desire of a catechumen could provide justification. These were rare cases, ‘in certain circumstances'( Letter of the Holy Office 1949). These cases of the baptism of desire were not the ordinary means of salvation. God would then provide the grace for the person to receive the baptism of water.
So in general there were not three types of baptism but only one. Only God could know who was saved with the baptism of blood and desire. So they were not an exception to everyone needing the baptism of water and Catholic Faith to go to Heaven.
De facto, in reality the ordinary means of salvation for all adults is only the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. This is the only explicit means of salvation.
The Baptism of desire cannot be a part of the ordinary means of salvation since we do not know any de facto case.
The Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing was wrong in assuming that the baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma. For the first time in the history of the Catholic Church he made the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance an issue. Then along with the Jesuits he placed this teaching prominently in Vatican Council II.
The media implied that the baptism of desire etc was an exception to the dogma. So they assumed Fr. Leonard Feeney was in heresy and that the Archbishop was a pioneer.
A defacto-dejure analysis of magisterial texts show that the Letter of the Holy Office does not mention this implication. Neither does Vatican Council II, or Lumen Gentium 16 make the false assumption.
Instead Lumen Gentium 16 only mentions invincible ignorance. It does not say that it is an exception the dogma or the ordinary means of salvation. Neither is it an exception to Vatican Council II, LG 14, AG 7.
So Lumen Gentium 16 only refers to a possibility, de jure. Something always implicit and unknown to us. De facto the ordinary means of salvation is LG 14, AG 7 i.e. the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.
So like Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7) Fr. Leonard Feeney affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He accepted in principle, dejure that a person could be saved with the baptism of desire i.e. a genuine desire with perfect charity, followed by the baptism of water which would all be implicit and known only to God.
The confusion on this issue continues since the media is in the hands of the enemies of the Church.
The magisterium however has approved the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney and has not retracted the dogma which is in accord with Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257,845,846 ( with a de facto-de jure analysis), Dominus Iesus 20, Redemptoris Missio 55 etc.
The Council of Trent mentions the baptism of desire and we know it is implicit and not the ordinary means of salvation. There is no Church definition which says the baptism of desire excludes being saved with the baptism of water. -Lionel Andrades
From the Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary:
Definition of DE FACTO
Origin of DE FACTO
Definition of DE JURE
Origin of DE JURE
A note from Lionel Andrades: In the context of this article, the best definition of De Jure would be “in principle”.
Doug Lawrence's Catholic Site 