Archive for October, 2011

Church’s narrative on St. Francis of Assisi

Tuesday, October 4th, 2011

Francis was born at Assisi in Umbria, and, after his father’s example, followed from his youth a mercantile career. One day, contrary to his custom, he repulsed a poor man who begged an alms of him for Christ’s sake; but, immediately repenting of what he had done, he bestowed a large bounty upon the beggar, and at the same time made a promise to God, never to refuse an alms to any one that asked him. After this he fell into a serious illness; and on his recovery, devoted himself more eagerly than ever to works of charity, making such rapid progress in this virtue, that, desirous of attaining evangelical perfection, he gave all he had to the poor. His father, angered at his proceedings, brought Francis before the bishop of Assisi, that, in his presence, he might formally renounce all claim to his patrimony. The saint gave up all to his father, even stripping off his garments, that he might, he said, for the future, have more right to say: Our Father who art in Heaven.

After hear one day this passage of the Gospel: Do not possess gold nor silver, nor money in your purses; nor scrip for your journey, nor two coats, nor shoes, he took it for his rule of life, laid aside his shoes and kept but one tunic. He gathered together twelve disciples and founded the Order of Minors. In the year of our salvation 1209 he went to Rome, to obtain the confirmation of his rule and Order from the apostolic See. Pope Innocent III at first refused to see him; but having in sleep beheld the man he had repulsed supporting with his shoulders the Lateran basilica which was threatening to fall, he had him sought out and brought to him; and receiving him kindly confirmed the whole system of his institute. Francis then sent his brethren into every part of the world to preach the Gospel. He himself, desirous of an opportunity of martyrdom, sailed into Syria; but the Soldan treated him most kindly; so that, unable to gain his end, he returned into Italy.

He built many convents of his Order; and then retired into solitude on Mount Alvernia; where he fasted forty days in honour of the Archangel St. Michael. On the feast of the Exaltation of the holy Cross, he had a vision of a seraph bearing between his wings the figure of the Crucified, who impressed the sacred stigmata on his hands and feet and side. St. Bonaventure says he heard Pope Alexander IV, while preaching, relate how he had himself seen thse wounds. These signs of Christ’s exceeding love for his servant excited universal wonder and admiration. Two years later, Francis grew very ill, and was carried, at his own request, into the church of St. Mary of the angels; that he might give up his mortal life to God, in the very place where he had commenced his life of grace. There, after exhorting the brethren to poverty and patience, and the preservation of the faith of the holy Roman Church, he said the psalm: I cried to the Lord with my voice. When he reached the verse: The just wait for me, until thou reward me, he breathed forth his soul, on the fourth of the Nones of October. He was renowned for miracles; and Pope Gregory IX enrolled him among the saints.

-from The Liturgical Year by Abbot Gueranger, O.S.B.

exception to law of baptism? “baptism of desire”

Monday, October 3rd, 2011

from The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Volume II, Canon George D. Smith:

First, Has Christ instituted any other positive means of regeneration besides baptism, either by way of addition to or exception from the law of baptism? Secondly, Is it not possible that, from the very nature of things which precedes all positive law and is allowed for in positive law, it might happen that a person could receive justification without the actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism?
 
We answer to the first of these questions in the negative. We cannot admit any other means of salvation positively instituted by Christ, for the very good reason that his positive law has provided one means and only one. If, therefore, any theories are advanced on the question of salvation which involves the recognition of some means of salvation positively instituted by Christ, other than baptism, such theories must immediately be rejected as at least erroneous.
 
We answer to the second question in the affirmative. It can happen that a person receives justification without actually receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. And it can happen in one of two ways: either, 1. by Martyrdom, or 2. by Charity.
 
p.778-779
 
…. Now, an act of charity always and necessarily contains a desire for the Sacrament of Baptism, hence the expression Baptism of Desire. The reason why it must contain this desire is that an act of the love of God must contain a desire of conforming to his will in every way. Therefore, since it is God’s will that we should receive the Sacrament of Baptism, this act must contain the desire for baptism. But this desire may either be implicitly or explicitly, and each alternative requires our careful consideration.
 
It is implicit in anyone who makes an act of the love of God, and, through invincible ignorance, does not know of the necessity of sacrament baptism. This might happen in a country like England to people who are not baptised.
 
Might it not also happen to heathens who have never heard of Christ?
 
It might, if we suppose that these heathens have in some way obtained the necessary minimum knowledge of Revelation, and are capable of a salutary faith and hope in God. For it is very important to understand that when we speak of charity, we do not mean just any kind of love of God above all else, such as the natural love of a creature for its Creator. Charity is essentially a love of friendship (Our Blessed Lord does not call us servants, but friends), which implies an intimate communication with God, such as is only possible in a supernatural order. The existence of this supernatural order can only be known through Revelation. Charity, therefore, cannot exist without at least the knowledge of the principle truth of Revelation. p. 782-783

“The Catholic Church and Salvation”

Sunday, October 2nd, 2011

by Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton

analysis of, Cantate Domino:
 
(1) All of those outside the Church, even the individuals who have committed no sin against the faith itself, are in a position in which they cannot be saved unless they in some way enter or join the Church before they die.
 
(2) The alternative to eternal and supernatural salvation is deprivation of the Beatific Vision. In the case of those who are guilty of mortal sin which remains unrepented, this includes both the penalty of loss and the penalty of sense in hell.
 
(3) The spiritual condition of one who is not “within” the Church at least by an act of implicit desire is incompatible with the reception of the life of sanctifying grace.
 
This document insists that pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics will not be saved unless, before the end of their lives, they are joined (aggregati) to the one true Church. p. 40-41

Pius IX

 
… it is perfectly possible for a man to die “outside” the true Church and to be excluded from the Beatific Vision forever without having his ignorance of the true Church or of the true religion counted as a moral fault. That is precisely what Pope Pius IX said in the Singulari quadam. He said it, as the context shows, as part of his explanation of the fact that the Catholic dogma of the Church’s necessity for the attainment of eternal salvation in no way involves a contradiction of the doctrines about God’s sovereign mercy and justice.
 
In this section of the Singulari quadam Pope Pius IX goes on to urge the Bishops of the Catholic Church to use all of their energies to drive from the minds of men the deadly error that the way of salvation can be found in any religion. To a certain extent this is a mere restatement of the erroneous opinion according to which we may well hope for the salvation of men who have never entered in any way into the Catholic Church, the first misinterpretation of Catholic teaching…
 
One of the most interesting factors in this section of the allocution is the fact that Pope Pius IX forbids his people to inquire into the presence or the lack or the extent of invincible ignorance in individual cases. He actually goes so far as to insist that it is wrong to go beyond the teaching that there is one God, one faith, and one baptism. p. 47
 
The primary and central object of the Church’s doctrinal ministry is to be found in the body of truth revealed by God through Our Lord Jesus Christ, and delivered to the Church by His Apostles as doctrine to be accepted with the assent of divine faith. The secondary object of that ministry embraces all and only those truths which the Church must be able to teach inerrantly in order to teach its primary object adequately as a living and infallible teaching body. The decision as to just what would constitute invincible, as distinct from vincible or culpable, ignorance of the Catholic Church in any individual case does not fall within the confines of either object. And, as a matter of fact, this decision is something which man in this life is quite incapable of forming rightly. p.48
 
On, Singulari quadam:
 
(1) It is a ruinous error to imagine that one can have grounds for hope that people now dead, and who had not entered into the Church in any way during the course of their lives, are saved.

(2) The dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is in no way opposed to the truth that God is all-merciful and all-just.

(3) The doctrine that no one is saved outside the Catholic Church is a truth revealed by God through Jesus Christ, and a truth which all men must believe with the assent of divine faith. It is a Catholic dogma.
(4) Invincible ignorance, of the true Church or of anything else, is not considered by God as a sin. The dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church in no way implies that invincible ignorance is sinful.

(5) It is an impious and deadly error to hold that salvation may be attained in any religion.

(6) It is not within the field either of our competence or of our rights to search out the way in which God’s mercy and His justice operate in any given case of a person ignorant of the true Church or of the true religion. We shall see how these divine attributes have operated in the light of the Beatific Vision itself. p. 56

Father Connell Answers Moral Questions

Saturday, October 1st, 2011

by Very Rev. Francis J. Connell, C.SS., S.T.D., LL.D., L.H.D.

Country or Conscience

Question: One of the questions sometimes put to Catholics in the United States is this: “In the event that there was a conflict between the laws of our country and the teachings of the Catholic Church, which would you obey?” What reply should a Catholic give to this query?

Answer: The question quoted by our correspondent is often intended to put Catholics in a situation in which they can be blamed, whatever answer they may give. If they answer that they would obey the civil law, they will be told that they are not consistent with the principles of the Catholic faith; if they answer that they would obey the teachings of the Church, they will be accused of disloyalty to their country.

I believe that the best rejoinder to this question is the question the interrogator: “What would you do if a civil law was passed that would be contrary to the law of God as your conscience dictates?” If the person questioned answers that under all circumstances he would regard the civil law as superior to every other form of legislation- in other words, if he accepts the principle “My country, right or wrong”- there would not be much advantage in arguing with him, since there is no common ground on which a discussion can be conducted. But I do not believe that there are many Americans who follow such an extreme view.

Most of the citizens of our land accept the principle that in a conflict between civil legislation and the divine law, the latter should be given precedence. Actually, the American government put this principle into operation several years ago, to refute some of the Nazi war criminals. When they claimed that they performed acts of cruelty because they were commanded to do so by their civil laws or by their superiors, they were told that there is a higher law (the law which is called the natural law by Catholics) which must be obeyed, even when it is contrary to the civil laws or the laws of superiors. Most of the citizens of our land accept this principle, whatever be their religious beliefs.

However, if some legislative act were passed in our land which the Church would officially declare contrary to the law of God, Catholics would accept the decision of the Church. For example, if any state legalized “mercy killing” (and attempts are being made to pass such a measure in some of our states) Catholics would be bound in conscience to refuse all participation in this procedure, which is simply murder. Thus, a Catholic judge would not be permitted to authorize the killing of a sick person, a Catholic doctor would not be allowed to administer a lethal drug, even though this were commanded by state law or civil officials. Catholics should not hesitate to explain these principles to their non-Catholic fellow citizens. We are not shamed to declare our stand- that in the event of a conflict between civil la w and God’s law as authoritatively declared by our Church, we should give preference to God’s law.