My Photo

Insight Scoop

Catholic World News Top Headlines (

The Curt Jester


Poor Box

Render Unto Us

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad

« Peggy Noonan: George Bush Divides Conservatives | Main | I Want One »

Monday, June 04, 2007


Chuck Griffin

All you have to do is take a good look at Peter Hitchens' face. His face has hate and gloom and doom all over. I don't think the man likes himself let alone God or anyone else!!

Brian Day

Hugh Hewitt is having Christopher Hitchens on his show tomorrow (Tuesday) for 3 hours in a debate with Mark D. Roberts (protestant pastor).

It would be nice if Catholics called in with some great points.


I like hearing and reading Christopher Hitchens. But his ridiculousness over religious proves the Proverb: a fool says there is no God. He sounds truly foolish sometimes. What would he say about a religious nine-year-old who had the exact same "revelation" he had at nine, except pro-religious. He would excoriate the kid who said at nine he just knew relgion was true; but if he concludes the opposite...that's ok. Please.

He can have his inerrant epiphany, but if Paul or others do...they're ridiculous. Nice consistency, Hitchens. Must be nice to say idiotic statements and get away with it because "you're so brilliant". Sorry, it often isn't so obvious.


I have often found rabid anti-religious people possess a certain childness or immaturity they never lose. Hitchen's arguments about religious folks possess a certain childness and immaturity. He can never seem to acknowledge the merits of religion and the religious. Really, Hitchens? You "despise" religious people? Nice.

He extolls the benefits of reason and logic, but then is quoted as saying he just knew religion didn't exist at nine, presumably when his mental faculties were at their sharpest. Great. At nine he has the mental acumen to be able to intuite the existential question that has stumped humanity since the dawn of time, thus exhibiting more signs of religious belief (intuition at nine) than many seers do. It must be nice to be a secular hypocrite and never get called on it.


I just had a 3-hr. with an atheist last Thurs. afternoon...same stuff. "I'm good to others because it's right...but there is no such thing as a conscience..."

It's all repeat and circular. We covered the usual topics and he had no facts to backup whatsoever. The usual pap.

I read this yesterday and quite liked Peter Hitchens' responses to his brother.


You have just added to my ever-widening list of Catholic literature I hopr to accomplish during my lifetime. About Hitchens - He has been spewing hatred for the Catholic Church, and particularly, JPII for eons. Interesting that he despises us so much because he never seems to forego any opportunity to appear on Hewitt's show. He must enjoy Hugh's Christian audience; although Hugh never lets any of us "take him on" while he is on the air. We only get to comment when he has had his segment. Generally, he is on almost weekly blathering on about his latest Vanity Fair dribble.


The world is being assailed by a certain class of men.

First is a new generation of skeptics and scientists, re-emerging agnostic and existentialism philosophers of the past, hellbent on freeing the world from God. The high priests of this atheistic crusade are natural scientist, authors, and modern philosophers led by Richard Dawkins, famous evolutionist and fanatical Atheist. Their weapons: Darwinism, Internet, and increasing uneasiness over the interference of bishops and Islamic preachers, political bigots, and churches. Their books top the bestseller lists in USA, Great Britain, France, Italy and Netherlands. Books by Richard Dawkins (the God Delusion), Christopher Hitchens (God is not great) and SAM Harris (end of the faith), french author Michel Onfray (we do not need God), Italian mathematician Piergiorgio Odifreddi (why we cannot be Christians), and Dutch feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali(faith in God is dangerous) are being scooped up with nothing less than missionary zeal.

The other class, says Marcel De Corte, one of the greatest Thomistic philosophers of the 20th century, is the self deluded intellectual, whose god is Reason; he divinizes reason. This man, the intellectual rationalist, has suddenly been placed on a pedestal as a model to the world. He does not make use of his intelligence to understand the outside world and assent his will to what in essence is proof of existence of the Creator, but one who pieces together a new world in conformity with his dream worlds and with the appearance he thinks it ought to have. And according to Dom Gerard, a Benedictine monk, this is non other than the conceptual Man born of the French Revolution, of communism and of Freemasonry, whose themes have been so completely adopted as to form an effective alliance with their deforming informations.

To crown it all, many catholics support these diabolical men by buying and reading their works. Couple of months ago, I had a conversation, with a late 70ish catholic acquaintance who is quite certain "nice" atheists go to heaven. He was pretty steadfast on this. His arguments were the usual stuff; he has many close atheist friends who are good to others, go out of their way to help....same stuff, as Dude puts it. At the very least he totally disagrees with the idea that they are damned because it is incompatible with what we know of God's infinite love. Then he concluded by denying the existence of hell in the first place.

I couldn't help but shake my head in total disbelief. Late in life, here was a practicing catholic denying fundamental truths.


Good post, spaxx.

I agree with almost all of it.

In so far as saying an atheist would definitely go to hell simply for being an atheist, I'm not sure I can follow you that far.

We know the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is that:

"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."

The Catholic Answers explains how this is consistent Church teaching in their tract, Salvation Outside The Church (which also includes quotes from Church Fathers):

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following historic Christian theology since the time of the early Church Fathers, refers to the Catholic Church as "the universal sacrament of salvation" (CCC 774–776), and states: "The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men" (CCC 780).

Many people misunderstand the nature of this teaching.

Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned.

The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).

Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.

These can be saved by what later came to be known as "baptism of blood" or " baptism of desire" (for more on this subject, see the Fathers Know Best tract, The Necessity of Baptism).

The Fathers likewise affirm the possibility of salvation for those who lived before Christ and who were not part of Israel, the Old Testament People of God.

However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.

It would probably be very difficult for an atheist to meet such conditions, though, because their lifestyle prevents many, many actual graces which would otherwise preserve them from committing actual (or personal) sin, and if anyone dies unrepentant of mortal sin, they go to hell.

Here's the real danger: If you're an atheist, who do you repent to?

So it's not like I'm saying it's no big deal to be an atheist. I'm just saying the theology does require some explanation.

It won't win the hearts of atheists to tell them a God they don't believe in will throw them into hell for not believing in Him if they honestly and innocently don't see any evidence that they should believe in God.





you quote the standard catholic response to the familiar question of whether "Inculpable Ignorance" leads to salvation. It is also the question of if salvation is possible outside the Catholic Church and it has already been answered in straight forward, easily understandable English.

In any case no good theologian ever made such an assertion. All good theologians attribute justification neither to inculpable ignorance of, nor even to the knowledge of, the necessary truths of salvation; they attribute it to the infinite mercy of God, who unites himself with the soul only when it is prepared by the supernatural acts of divine faith, hope, and charity.

Q: Will those heretics be saved, who are not guilty of the sin of heresy, and are faithful in living up to the dictates of their conscience?

In response to this question Father Michael Muller, C.SS.R. says

A: Inculpable ignorance of the true religion excuses a heathen from the sin of infidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy. But such ignorance has never been the means of salvation. From the fact that a person who lives up to the dictates of his conscience, and who cannot sin against the true religion on account of being ignorant of it, many have drawn the false conclusion that such a person is saved, or, in other words, is in the state of sanctifying grace, thus making ignorance a means of salvation or justification.

If we sincerely wish not to make great mistakes in explaining the great revealed truth, "Out of the Church there is no salvation," we must remember:

a) That there are four great truths of salvation, which everyone must know and believe in order to be saved;

b) That no one can go to Heaven unless he is in the state of sanctifying grace;

c) That, in order to receive sanctifying grace, the soul must be prepared for it by divine Faith, Hope, Charity, true sorrow for sin with the firm purpose of doing all that God requires the soul to believe and to do, in order to be saved;

d) That this preparation of the soul cannot be brought by inculpable ignorance. And if such ignorance cannot even dispose the soul for receiving the grace of justification, it can much less give this grace to the soul. Inculpable ignorance has never been a means of grace or salvation, not even for the inculpably ignorant people that live up to their conscience. But of this class of ignorant persons we say, with Saint Thomas Aquinas, that God in His mercy will lead these souls to the knowledge of the necessary truths of salvation, even send them an angel, if necessary, to instruct them, rather than let them perish without their fault. If they accept this grace, they will be saved as Catholics.

Archbishop George Hay's (1729-1811) THE CATHOLIC TEACHING ON SALVATION echoes the same truth.

Q: But can none who are in heresy, and in invincible ignorance of the Truth be saved?

A: God forbid we should say so! ... if they live and die in that state they will not be saved, and that according to the present providence they cannot be saved but the great God is able to take them out of that state, to cure even their ignorance though invincible to them tin their present situation, to bring them to the knowledge of the True Faith, and to the communion of His Holy Church, and in consequence of that to salvation; and we further add, that if He be pleased, of his infinite mercy, to save any who are at present in invincible ignorance of the Truth, in order to act consistently with Himself, and with His Holy Word [for, indeed, God is bound by His Word; God cannot deceive us], He will undoubtedly bring them to the union of His Holy Church for that purpose, before they die.

You say that,

"It won't win the hearts of atheists to tell them a God they don't believe in will throw them into hell for not believing in Him if they honestly and innocently don't see any evidence that they should believe in God"

This is a specious proposition that serves as an occasion for some dangerous mistakes in this matter. Yet Holy Scriptures clearly gives light on this matter

"There is a way," says the wise man, "that seemeth right to a man, but ends thereof lead to death," (Prov. xiv. 12) And it is again repeated, Prov. xvi. 25. What can be more plain than this, to show that a man may act according to what he thinks the light of reason and conscience, and be persuaded he is doing right, and yet be, in fact, running on in the road to perdition? And do not all those who are seduced by false prophets, and false teachers, think they are in the right way? Is it not under the pretext of acting according to conscience that they are seduced by them? And yet the mouth of Truth itself has expressly declared, that, "if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the pit," (Mat. xv. 14). Yea, the same eternal truth, to show us to what excess of wickedness man is capable of going, under the pretense of following his conscience, says to his apostles: "the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you, will think that he does God service." (Jn. xvi. 2.) But observe what he adds, "and these things will they do, because they have not known the Father nor me," (verse 3). Which shows that, if one has not the True knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ, which can only be got by His True Faith, there is nothing so enormous but what he is capable of, and yet think he is acting according to reason and conscience. Indeed, had God given us no other guide than the light of reason, such as it is, to direct us, we might in following that light, but, as He has given us an external guide in His Holy Church, to rectify our blinded reason by the light of Faith, our reason alone, unassisted by this guide, can never be sufficient for salvation.



I never said inculpable ignorance was sufficient for salvation. I was quite clear on what is necessary for salvation and quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the matter instead of using my own words.

I quoted a source that explained the necessity of at least baptism of desire (or blood, though that certainly couldn't apply to an atheist) and I explained the conditions necessary for baptism of desire, and my conditions by quoting official Catholic doctrine and then explaining a bit in my own words (without contradicting the official teaching).

I find it interesting that I quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church and an article that quoted the Fathers of the Church, while you cited Father Michael Muller, C.SS.R. and Archbishop George Hay.

I'm confident that theological sources I cited have more authority than the opinions of Father Michael Muller, C.SS.R. and Archbishop George Hay.

Moreover, I'm alarmed that you implied that the sources I cited were not written by "good" theologians. Are you implying that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is an authoritative source of Catholic doctrine, was not written by "good" theologians?

What about the Church Fathers quoted in the linked article? Are they also poor theologians?

Additionally, Father Michael Muller, C.SS.R is incorrect to say:

"That, in order to receive sanctifying grace, the soul must be prepared for it by divine Faith, Hope, Charity, true sorrow for sin with the firm purpose of doing all that God requires the soul to believe and to do, in order to be saved."

Catholics believe in infant baptism. Do you honestly believe an infant meets those conditions?

Father Michael Muller, C.SS.R then concludes that:

"That this preparation of the soul cannot be brought by inculpable ignorance. And if such ignorance cannot even dispose the soul for receiving the grace of justification, it can much less give this grace to the soul. Inculpable ignorance has never been a means of grace or salvation, not even for the inculpably ignorant people that live up to their conscience. But of this class of ignorant persons we say, with Saint Thomas Aquinas, that God in His mercy will lead these souls to the knowledge of the necessary truths of salvation, even send them an angel, if necessary, to instruct them, rather than let them perish without their fault. If they accept this grace, they will be saved as Catholics."

So, let me understand this, and please correct me if I'm wrong.

You believe that unbaptized infants who die go to the Limbo of the Unbaptized (which is still hell, technically speaking), and you call anyone who doesn't agree with you that the Limbo of the Unbaptized is a defined Catholic doctrine and says they do not know for sure what happens to such infants a heretic, but you also believe that "God in His mercy will lead [invincibly ignorant] souls to the knowledge of the necessary truths of salvation, even send them an angel, if necessary, to instruct them, rather than let them perish without their fault. If they accept this grace, they will be saved as Catholics"?

Why can't God do that for unbaptized infants?





the sources I quote spent their whole lives studying, teaching, and explaining catholic doctrine. They are thoroughly grounded in Thomistic and Augustinian Theology, and base their statements on both Tradition and Scripture. They would never diverge by even an iota from Tradition. Theirs are not mere human opinions.

Father Michael Müller is well known for his magnificent books The Blessed Sacrament, Prayer: the Key to Salvation, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and The Sinner's Return to God. He also authored many works that are now out of print. In 1875, he wrote a small booklet entitled A Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine in which he emphasized the doctrine that "outside the Church there is no salvation." He is in perfect continuity with the most orthodox Catholic writers of his period, and clarifies the teaching of Pope Piux IX.

Archbishop George Hay (1729 - 1811) presents, a superb exegetical study of the scriptures, in examining what the Apostles taught concerning key doctrines of our most holy religion. After a condemnation of those who hold to salvation outside the Church, the Archbishop reveals a wealth of scriptural quotes proving, beyond a doubt, that there is absolutely no salvation outside the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. He simply affirms was Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, Saint Pius X.

Please do not get me wrong, as you are already aware, am a traditional catholic who sticks to Tradition, more so during these dangerous post Vatican II times. Anything post Vatican II must be examined with diligence because as we all know Liberals where in charge of that council.

Now, I will stick to catholic catechism. You claim to quote catholic catechism but i ask which catechism do you quote? Some catechisms are unacceptable in so far as they diverge from the Catechism of the Tradition and the Council of Trent. I already mentioned a few example in another post such as the Dutch catechism.

All new catechisms are based to a greater or lesser degree on the Dutch Catechism published in 1966 which was so spurious that the Pope appointed a commission of cardinals to examine it. A few years earlier the teachings in this catechism would have been forthrightly condemned and the Dutch Catechism put on the Index. The errors or omissions contained did in fact, touch upon essentials of the faith.

The Dutch Catechism ignores the angels, and does not treat human souls as being directly created by God. It insinuates that original sin was not transmitted by our first parents to all their descendants but is contracted by men through their living in the human community, where evil reigns, as though it were a sort of epidemic. There is no affirmation of the virginity of Mary. Nor does it say that Our Lord died for our sins, being sent for this purpose by His Father, and that this was the price by which divine Grace was restored to us. Consequently, the Mass is presented not as a sacrifice but as a banquet. Neither the Real Presence or the reality of Transubstantiation are clearly affirmed.

The Church's infallibility and the fact that she is the possessor of the truth have vanished from this teaching, likewise the possibility for the human intellect to “declare and attain to revealed mysteries”: thereby one arrives at agnosticism and relativism. The ministerial priesthood is minimized. The office of the bishops is considered as a mandate entrusted to them by the “people of God,” and their teaching authority is seen as a sanctioning of the belief held by the community of the faithful. And the Pope no longer has his full, supreme and universal authority.

Neither is the Holy Trinity, the mystery of the three divine Persons, presented in a satisfactory manner. The commission also criticized the explanation given of the efficacy of the sacraments, of the definition of a miracle, and of the fate of the souls of the just after death. It found a great deal of vagueness in the exposition of the laws of morality, and "solutions to cases of conscience" put a low price on the indissolubility of marriage.



I quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church – the one promulgated by Pope John Paul II on October 11, 1992, the thirtieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in the fourteenth year of his Pontificate.

It's the current official catechism of the Church. It doesn't contradict other Catechisms, such as the Catechism of the Council of Trent. In fact, it frequently cites the Catechism of the Council of Trent as a source. However, it does address issues not mentioned (explicitly) in the Catechism of the Council of Trent and other official catechisms before the Second Vatican Council.

It's essentially the Catechism of Vatican II, since Vatican II recommended that a new catechism be written.

You can look through it here at the Vatican's website: Catechism of the Catholic Church

There are other sites that have the whole Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well, and I had originally linked one of those in my earlier reply, but it says the same thing in both places.

Here is the page with the section on salvation that I quoted (scroll down to paragraph number 847): Paragraph 3. The Church Is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic

If you read the other CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) in my earlier comments, you will see paragraph numbers referencing those parts of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well next to the CCC.



Kathy Carroll

Not to nitpick, but as long as you're doing such good work, it's spelled "Bellarmine"--I went to grade school at St. Robert's

Excellent resources linked, thank you!


SPAXX: I like your diligence and your dedication to the church. However, you and I would differ on "The Church" as of the early 1960's.

I'll take issue on 2 points.
1) You definately assert that because a man studies Augustinian and Thomistic thought, writes books on prayer and that they appear to be good, holy, upright teachers of the faith, that they are infallible. In tandem with this assertion, you deny The Pope's and the Second Vatican Council's infallibility. We already know you deny the council, but do you not see the difficulty your position presents? You take down the authority of The Pope, and raise a priest to long as he appears to uphold your version of Catholicism which denies Councils and Popes.
Here is what I say: It appears to me that the buck stops with you. You are your own pope.
This actually makes you a Protestant.

2) You state "Anything post Vatican II must be examined with diligence because as we all know Liberals where in charge of that council." WE all know Declaritively that "Liberals were in charge?"

Such a declarative statement. I would challenge you to name 6 people in charge of Vatican II. Now I would challenge you to name 20, 30, 40 etc. Now of those name declaritively who was a liberal/dissenter and who was not. Here is the second part of the challenge: Since you seem to have such great knowledge of the liberals in charge, I challenge you to answer this without referring to anything other than your memory. No internet, no books by others...nothing. The reason I ask from memory, is if this is true and you knew "who was in charge" and that "WE all know they were liberals", that you should be able to name at least a dozen or so of them from memory. Ok, Ok, at least 6. OK, OK, at least 3...2...1? On your honor, please take that challenge from memory. If you can do this from memory, this would demonstrate to me that you really knew "who was in charge" and quite a bit about their personalities. If you knew them in depth enough to declare that all in charge of Vatican II were liberals, I bet you would be able to recall at least a dozen names. 6? 3? You get my point:
I think your statement is without foundation and I think you are parroting that which you hear in the schismatic (kudos for their diligence to traditional Catholicism), separatist, pope-sifting version of Catholicism.

I will challenge the notion that Vatican II was declaratively "run by liberals."

I will not contest that liberals have taken Vatican II and acted like monkey's at the salad bar with doctrine...but this is an entirely different animal.

Lastly, I know you are asserting that the CCC that Thomistic was quoting from is illegitimate. 'WE ALL KNOW ' you are specifically referring to the one of 1992, in the year of our Lord.

Time for you to read some apologetics books by "Liberal Catholics" against the well-intentioned, but sadly mistaken SSPX'rs. Try Patrick Madrid's "More Catholic Than The Pope."

Time for you to get back in The Church you claim there is absolutely no salvation without.


Thanks for the post! Excellent info and resources! By the way, Hitchens was debated on Hewitt for three hours today, I believe by a Protestant professor. Unfortunately, I wasn't very impressed with the professor. He was perfectly intelligent and respectful (overly so, but he may have been trying to make a point with his kindness), but if I may generalize, I think Catholics tend to engage secularists more effectively because the Catholic Church is really the main target for all who despise Religion. Half of Hitchens attacks focused on historical "atrocities" of the Church. Catholics have had to engage on both sides for the last 400 years; Protestant brothers on one side, secularists on the other. In any case, Hitchens was also quite a bit more crafty than the Prof, as well as fallacious. We could have done with some more serpentine cunning, (as in cunning as serpents, not the demonic sort of course).



you quote Pope John Paul II Catechism as if Faith is the servant of the Pope. The Pope is a servant of the Faith. Yet, this is a Pope who announced that

"Evolution is Compatible with Christian faith."

Should we then without discernment accept such statements in blind obedience? Should we without discernment blindly follow a Pope who so strongly and directly contradicted the Biblical teaching and the Traditions of the Fathers?

I repeat, anything out of Vatican II cannot and must not be blindly followed. For example, communion in the hand was promulgated after Vatican II. Should one commit sacrilege in blind obedience to Vatican II?

Again I repeat, after Vatican II, a number of new catechisms appeared which did not present Catholic Doctrine as it should be presented, and these new publications even included some very grave errors. Coupled with the new methods, whereby children are not required to memorise, two generations of children have grown up not knowing the Catholic Faith. The catechism you quote is a modern catechism and I have already given examples of the grave errors contained in all modern catechisms.


with a little bit of searching on your part, you can find this information. Am in no mood for pointless contentions. I quote priests who quote the Traditional Magisterium. Besides, their works have the Approbation of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith.

Stick to Vatican II if you wish. I choose Tradition and I cannot be possibly damned for making such a choice. Otherwise all the Pre-vatican II Saints and Martyrs are damned.


To all SSPX naysayers,

please carefully read the following Declaration By Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Rome, 21 November 1974

We adhere with our whole heart and with our whole soul to Catholic Rome, the guardian of the Catholic faith and of those traditions necessary for the maintenance of that faith, to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.

Because of this adherence, we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-modernists and neo-protestant tendencies, such as were clearly manifested during the second Vatican Council, and after the Council in all the resulting reforms.

All these reforms have, indeed, contributed and still contribute to the demolition of the Church, to the ruin of the Priesthood, to the destruction of the Holy Sacrifice and of the Sacraments, to the disappearance of the religious life, and to naturalistic and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries, and catechetics, a teaching born of Liberalism and Protestantism many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.

No authority, even the very highest in the hierarchy, can constrain us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic faith, such as it has been clearly expressed and professed by the church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries.

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema". (Gal. 1,8).

Is this not what the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if a certain contradiction is apparent in his words and actions, as well as in the acts of various Roman Congregations, then we choose what has always been taught, and we turn a deaf ear to the innovations which are destroying the church. The "lex orandi" (law of prayer) cannot be profoundly changed, without changing the "lex credendi" (law of belief). The new Mass is in line with the new catechism, the new priesthood, new seminaries, new universities, and the charismatic or Pentecostal church, all of which are in opposition to orthodoxy and to the age-old Magisterium.

This reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, Is entirely corrupt; it comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this Reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the Reform.

It is for this reason that, without any rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of the formation of priests under the star of the age-old Magisterium, in the conviction that we can thus do no greater service to the holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to future generations.

For this reason we hold firmly to all that has been believed and practised by the Church of always, in her faith, morals, worship, catechetical instruction, priestly formation and her institutions, and codified in the books which appeared before the modernist influence of the late Council. Meanwhile, we wait for the true light of Tradition to dispel the darkness which obscures the sky of the eternal Rome. By acting thus we are sure, with the grace of God, and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Saints Joseph and Saint Pius X, of remaining faithful to the Catholic and Roman Church, to all the successors of St. Peter, and of being "fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto. Amen" (Faithful dispensers of the mysteries of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Ghost. Amen)

"Satan's masterstroke is to have succeeded in
sowing disobedience to all tradition through obedience."



the issue of Limbo is sapping my strength yet tradition is crystal clear on this matter. So, to put to rest this matter once and for all, I want you to answer the following questions in a straight forward manner.

Does not the Church even teach that in the case of danger of death, anyone can baptize?

Does the Church not tell us thereby that without baptism the infant will never see God?

Why has the Church for centuries denied a solemn burial for the unbaptized infant, while she has always wanted the funeral of a baptized infant to be celebrated in white?

In the history of the Church did missionaries not go to the ends of the earth to baptize?

If the Pope declares Limbo null and void, the consequences in the order of baptism will be fatal. In that case, why the hurry to baptize?

Why baptize at all before the child is of the age of reason?

St. Alphonsus taught that parents who neglect to baptism their child for more than a month commit mortal sin. Why then should there be mortal sin since the child stands in no danger of never seeing God?

You say Limbo "is still hell, technically speaking". Those are your words. Whatever it is, I know that the unbaptized children inhabiting it are deprived of the Beatific vision because this is what Tradition teaches and has taught for centuries.

The alarming decision to do away with this fundamental Catholic Truth appears to have been on the Pope's mind when as Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI had already voiced his OPINION on the dissolution of Limbo. He presided over the commission's first sessions and said that Limbo has no place in modern Catholicism. In an interview, "The Ratzinger Report," he told Vittorio Messori that Limbo had

"never been a definitive truth of the faith ... Personally, I would let it drop, since it has always been only a theological hypothesis." (Ignatius Press 1985 pg.147)

In the past, the Church indeed had a practice of calling together some eminent theologians to study more carefully this or that point of doctrine. Yet when it concerned a point of doctrine that had been in TRADITION for a thousand years or a teaching that was a true theological conclusion, she would study the question so as to CLARIFY it more. Never did she undertake such a study in order to do away with it.

What should we think about this?

Is it true that the teaching of Limbo was never taught by the fathers?

Could the Pope deny such a teaching? What consequences will follow?

Again I ask, should the Faithful blindly follow such modern teachings?

It is true to say that the existence of Limbo was, for the first thousand years of the Church much disputed. However, what was never put into question was that an infant dying without baptism, that is with Original sin on the soul, was deprived of the beatific vision.

A letter of Pope Innocent III, who presided over one of the golden eras of the Church, to the Archbishop of Arles also teaches that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer "no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God" (Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii -- Majores).

In conclusion, never has there been such a teaching in tradition. It is also a theological absurdity that would seek to undermine the whole doctrine of Original Sin, Sanctifying grace and the very words of Our Lord Himself: “Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”. (St. John 3; 4)

The cooling down of fervour among Catholics is sure to become terrible beyond words.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Pope Benedict XVI Homilies & Statements

Codex of Catholic Blogs

Orthodox Blogs

Blogs From People We Wish Were Catholic