In the Boondocks of the Kingdom
When I first contemplated entering the Church, I was encouraged by a former seminary professor to read the book Revolution in Rome by Protestant theologian David Wells. Wells begins his book by noting that the Catholic Church traditionally has been considered the “Church that never changes,” at least in doctrine. But, according to him, the Church did change her doctrine at Vatican II. One of the examples he cites is the Council’s teaching on the possibility of salvation for those who are not in visible communion with the Church. In this Wells claimed that the bishops introduced a brand-new doctrine into the Church.
It seemed to me that the easiest way to test Wells’ claim was to go back and read orthodox Catholic theologians who wrote prior to the Council to see what they said about this matter. I accessed Ludwig Ott, Cardinal Gibbons, Newman, and then went back further to Francis de Sales and Thomas Aquinas. All of them matter-of-factly affirmed exactly what the Second Vatican Council affirmed, that those who, through invincible ignorance, do not know the Catholic Church to be the one true Church can still be saved if they live fully in light of the truth they possess.
As I pondered it a bit more, I realized that there were numerous ancient witnesses to this truth as well: Augustine in his controversy with the Donatists, Pope Stephen in his squabble with Cyprian over the rebaptism of heretics, Justin Martyr’s view that the ancient Greek philosophers were enlightened by grace. (An excellent source for ancient Christian testimony on this point is Fr. William Most’s book Catholic Apologetics Today. )
Couple all of this with the fact that the Bible says the same thing (Acts 10:34-35, Rom. 2:26-29) and it became quite clear to me that, far from being innovative, the Second Vatican Council had affirmed something that had always been part of authentic Catholic teaching.
What about Pope Boniface VIII’s decree Unam Sanctam in which he declares that “it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff”? Is it possible to be implicitly subject to the pope?
I thought of an analogy that helped me understand how these teachings mesh. Suppose a king comes to possess a new territory. Those in the capital city all know that they are under a new sovereign, and because of their explicit knowledge they must make a definite choice to submit or rebel. But there might well be those who live in isolated or remote parts of the realm who do not know that they fall under this jurisdiction. Objectively they are “subject” to the king, and yet subjectively they live as if they were not. Evaluation of their “submission” would have to be based on what they would do if they knew that they were under a new ruler.
So it is with people who are outside visible communion with the Catholic Church. It is a bit like “baptism of desire.” The Church always has taught that those can be saved without water baptism who would be baptized if they knew of its necessity and had opportunity to receive it. So too with submitting to the Pope. Objectively everyone falls under the care of the Vicar of Christ, but subjectively many do not know or acknowledge this. The reasons for this are numerous: lack of information, misinformation, emotional and psychological blocks to hearing Catholic truth. Many non-Catholic Christians may be far out in the hinterlands as far as their genuine understanding of the Catholic Church is concerned.
It helped me to remember, too, that the Second Vatican Council never said it was easy to be saved outside of the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church. Catholics are not universalists, although many Catholics ignorant of the actual Council documents tend to believe that this is the Church’s new position. Our duty as Catholics is still to reach all men and women with the fullness of Catholic truth; in the meantime their ultimate destiny is in God’s hands, based on how fully they live up to the light they do have. On this point the bishops at Vatican II did nothing but make explicit and official what had always been taught in the Catholic Church.
David J. Palm
Waukegan, Wisconsin
The Big Four
As a Catholic I believe in Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, the magisterium, and This Rock. Thank you for your hard work. I will do my part by continually promoting This Rock (two subscriptions to date).
Ed Zanella
Pascoag, Rhode Island
A Wise Consistency
Thanks for “Pilate’s Question” (April 1996) by Peter B. Wells. It is clearly the matter of “consistency” alone that separates prolife Americans from those who hide behind the mantle of “choice” while promoting the destruction of tiny human beings. The article should do much to prepare the Catholic to better defend the truth that every human being is created in the image and likeness of God. Bravo!
Judie Brown, President
American Life League
Stafford, Virginia
The Catholic Challenge
In “I’ll Leave the Catholic Church If . . .” (May 1966) Kenneth Ramage articulates the conditions by which someone could induce him to leave the Catholic Church.
He asserts: “I have listed below four propositions central to why I believe the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ. For those who believe my eternal soul is in jeopardy because of these beliefs, I offer this challenge. If you can disprove even one of these propositions, I will leave the Catholic Church and become a Protestant. . . .
“If you believe you can disprove any of the above propositions, I will review your information prayerfully. If I’m convinced your arguments are correct, I will become a Protestant. If you cannot disprove at least one of these points, obedience to Christ will demand I remain Catholic. You might reflect on what obedience requires of you.”
In view of this challenge, I ask the following questions:
1. Even if all these propositions could be disproved; does it necessarily follow that Protestantism is the true faith? If so, what form of Protestantism? Which denomination or movement?
2. Anyone who attempts to respond to Mr. Ramage’s challenge does not have to prove anything. He merely has to disprove one of the above propositions. If such a challenger were an atheist, and if he were successful, wouldn’t Mr. Ramage be obliged to become an atheist?
3. Is such a challenge to find fault with the Catholic Church an exhortation to faith? Is such an approach as taken by Mr. Ramage good apologetics? Is it a good form of evangelism?
I ask these questions because I believe that responsibility and charity in apologetics demand that they be asked. In my opinion, the publication of such an open challenge is rash.
Ernest A. Muro, Jr.
Orlando, Florida
Take a Letter, John
Kenneth Ramage makes the statement, “As far as we know, our Lord never wrote a single word while on earth, nor did he ever command his disciples to write.”
This is clearly incorrect. In the book of Revelation our Lord appears to John (the apostle and evangelist, according to the Fathers and Church Tradition), and he tells John: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea” (Rev. 1:11). Our Lord then commands John, “Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later” (Rev. 1:19). Our Lord also tells John to write a specific message to each of these seven churches: “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write .. . To the angel of the church in Smyrna write . . .” (cf. Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14).
I point this out not just to set the record straight, but for another reason. Recently there have been all sorts of fancy “theologians” telling us why John wrote the book of Revelation. The first thing we must realize is that, in a very real sense, this is not John’s Revelation, but Christ’s. It isn’t as if John sat around the campfire at night on Patmos thinking up ways to cheer up the Christian troops who were suffering persecution during the first century, whereupon he came up with the idea of the book of Revelation.
To the contrary, the very beginning of the book makes it clear that this is “The revelation of Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:1), which Christ made known by sending his angel to John, who faithfully records “everything he saw that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Rev. 1:2).
It is clear throughout the book that John is specifically told to write down the testimony and the words of Christ: “These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again” (Rev. 2:8). “These are the words of him who has the sharp, double-edged sword” (Rev. 2:12). “These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze” (Rev. 2:18) .
Do you think it just might be possible that the reason John wrote the book of Revelation is because Christ appeared to John in a vision, gave him the Revelation, and told him to write it down, and that John was simply being obedient to Christ’s commands?
Tom Phillips
Catholics Serving the Lord
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Kenneth Ramage replies: My challenge was not a gratuitous one. My faith is not a blind faith, but a faith consistent with reason. So if, for example, the Church really had “infallibly” defined even one doctrine that it later reversed or contradicted, it would not be the Church it claims to be-its teachings would be fallible, and I really would leave.
If an atheist were able to “prove” such a doctrinal error, that would not “disprove” the existence of God. I would not therefore be obliged to become an atheist, but rather a Christian who did not believe that Christ established the Catholic Church (“Protestant”). I was, after all, a Christian before I joined the Catholic Church. I believe my challenge is consistent with Peter’s exhortation to “always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope” (1 Pet. 3:15). I hope Mr. Muro is as confident as I am that none of these propositions can be disproved.
Mr. Phillips has me on a technicality. In the first half of the sentence he quotes, I said “while on earth.” I had intended that this phrase apply to the second half of the sentence as well (in other words, during Christ’s earthly ministry). In rereading it, I can see that this may not have been evident. Thanks for the clarification.
Virtual Hell
The article “Sister Hell” (May 1996) struck me, since I also have experienced Modernist “tolerance” within the Church. The situation Terrye Newkirk described reminded me of an episode from C. S. Lewis’s imaginative little book, The Great Divorce, which describes a bus trip from hell to the outskirts of heaven.
One of the passengers is a Modernist Anglican bishop who facilitates a small theological debate group back in hell. As the bishop encounters heaven’s reality, he comprehends neither that there are actual, final truths that demand acceptance nor that his God-given talents are not “needed” in heaven. Since his conditions for staying in heaven cannot be met, he determines that he is “needed” more in hell. (The point is, of course, God “needs” none of us in heaven.) In the end, the bishop opts to return to his self-absorbed little hell rather than remain in the wide open spaces of heaven.
It seems to me that, like the bishop, the sisters have created their own little hell in cyberspace, where the fresh breezes of truth and orthodoxy are not welcome. The Modernist approach is to focus on your own “giftedness” rather than God’s will; these sisters have become preoccupied with their own fulfillment as priestesses. They don’t seem to realize that God doesn’t “need” them in that role to help his Church, he just needs them to respond to their own vocation of holiness, as our Holy Father points out. Let’s pray for them and all who rail against the truth.
Joseph B. Voor
Mims, Florida
A Melancholy Fact
It may well be a good idea to reprint the apologetical writings of Father John A. O’Brien from the 1940’s, as Catholic Answers is now doing. In his day Father O’Brien did a great deal of good work, of a kind which few people today are prepared even to attempt.
However, it is also a melancholy fact that in the late 1960s, toward the end of his life, Fr. O’Brien undid much of the good work he had spent a lifetime doing. He became a fanatical public advocate of birth control and regularly wrote for the secular media attacking Church teaching on the subject. He was the quintessential “useful idiot,” whom agencies hostile to the Church could trot out to do their work for them.
James Hitchcock
St. Louis, Missouri
Editor’s reply: This was one of those sad cases in which someone goes loopy in his old age. Fr. O’Brien wrote and edited many fine books during the 1940s and 1950s-I remember reading, as a boy, his story of the Jesuit martyrs of North America (a book I still have)-and in all of them he was perfectly orthodox. This goes in spades for Winning Converts, which, if anything, might be considered by some to be too “triumphalistic”-which I consider a plus, since we could use a few triumphs nowadays.
True Treasure
Your call for personal conversion, corporate conversion, and national conversion (“Up Front,” July/August 1996) is right on target. As you note so eloquently, we need a vibrant Catholic faith in our land.
I just received Catholic Answers’ re-publication of Winning Converts. It is a true treasure. Although I’ve only read a portion of it at this time, your column immediately reminded me of Fr. O’Brien’s words, originally published in 1948:
“The outstanding problem facing the Church in America today is the winning of the . . . churchless men and women of our land. . . . No nation can endure half Christian and half pagan. Either one or the other will ultimately become the American way of life” (emphasis mine).
That battle for American society, not yet decided, is quite distinct from the victory of the faithful purchased at the price of the Precious Blood of our Lord at the Cross. How chilling is the fact that the present American societal battle could be seen almost fifty years ago and remains a battle today, even more so.
We need faithful, orthodox Catholic organizations like Catholic Answers and others to help us prevail in the societal struggle in this country. Faithful soldiers for that struggle must be prepared, intellectually and spiritually. Your organization and others like it give us that nourishment we need to go forth and prevail.
William R. Smith, M.D.
Jackson, Mississippi
Wanted: Homily Grit
Your last two issues of This Rock have been outstanding, and I am so thankful for the ministry of Catholic Answers!
Jack Taylor’s “Will You Also Go Away?” (April 1996) was so enlightening and really came into play for me in a personal way. After reading it I had numerous conversations with my father (a deacon in Temple, Texas), my younger brother (a youth director at a parish in Coppel, Texas), and many other friends about the content and our concerns about such “trendy” new interpretations of Scripture.
The following Sunday, prior to Mass, my wife and I were reviewing the readings. I pointed out the Gospel reading and related the article from This Rock. It just so happened that we had a guest celebrant who is an excellent homilist. I was so excited to hear him preach on this set of readings, especially because I had just read the article.
His sermon was rating a 10+ until he chose to cite a popular theologian’s interpretation of this Scripture passage. I was stunned to hear him explain how Jesus might not have performed an actual miracle, but may have just demonstrated this lesson by his example. I felt my wife’s finger pressing into my ribs when she heard him start rolling, and I cringed. After Mass, I wrote the priest a letter explaining my concerns, and I received a reply that was filled with grace and understanding. This article brought something significant to my attention, and I was able to use it to do the same with a very popular priest. Thanks again.
Now I have a question for you. I was at my local parish on Sunday, and was excited to hear our priest preach about Matthew 16. This reading is so special to me because it is so Catholic. Instead of relating anything in his sermon to Peter as our first Holy Father, or talking about the authority given to Peter and the Church, our priest spent fifteen minutes talking about our parish RCIA program.
I can understand the need to explain our parish programs, but before we evangelize, we need to make sure that our own members know what we believe. I was so frustrated as I walked out of church. I told my wife that the priest failed to mention anything about the Peter as Rock (our first pope) or binding and loosing (confession), and she said, “I sure didn’t get anything about the pope or confession out of today’s gospel.” I replied, “Neither did anyone else in the parish.”
I feel that our priest chooses topics away from the teaching message of the weekly readings so that we can talk about a new ministry, activity, or fund raiser. We need to hear how our beliefs are rooted in Scripture. We need to hear ways that we can answer the tough questions about “why you Catholics do that.”
I have prepared a letter that I would like to send to my priest. What do think would be appropriate for me to do? I know that our priests need our prayers and our support, and I don’t wish to undermine his authority. But some points need to be made. If you could provide any feedback, it would be most appreciated!
Philip Klement
Houston, Texas
Editor’s reply: First of all, read this issue’s interview with Mike Aquilina, who addresses these points. He explains how to go about approaching a priest or bishop.
Your homily story sounds familiar to me because I sat through the same kind of homily that day. I took my teenaged son to an afternoon Mass, and the homily was a disquisition on the recent news report that a meteorite may indicate the existence of extraterrestrial life.
There was hardly a word about the institution by Christ of the papacy or the special role of Peter. What a lost opportunity! The priest, whom I know, is perfectly orthodox, but in his speaking he usually confines himself to images drawn from science, science fiction, and psychology. It’s a shame.
Knock, Knock. Slam!
After reading Robert Sungenis’s article, “Where Have All the Opponents Gone?” (June 1996), I felt a stream of emotion surge back up. I have been a convert to the Catholic Church from Evangelicalism for three years. During my time of conversion, I was trying to explain to my Evangelical roommate my reasons for converting. She stunned me with a story that she had attended a Protestant college during one summer for a special conference and the lecturer told the audience that “the Catholic Church was full of falsehoods.”
This lack of critical thinking runs rampant throughout Protestantism. I don’t understand why. When I was confronted with the claims of the Catholic Church, indeed I wanted to “set my opponent straight” and mustered the energy I needed to do so. And now I am a Catholic for having done so. Evangelicals seem to be able to “witness” to “the ends of the earth” but the door slams when Catholics knock. This to me is one of the seven wonders of the world.
Laura Pfost
Sterling, Virginia