Worshipping with Protestants Is A Mortal Sin

No one can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Church, you can find everything except salvation. You can have dignities, you can have Sacraments, you can sing "Alleluia," answer "Amen," have the Gospels, have faith in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and preach it, too. But never can you find salvation except in the Catholic Church - St. Augustine

There Is Only One True Religion

The Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ has always taught that organized religion is revealed by God and necessary for salvation. And the one religion revealed by God that is true, which is confirmed by both reason and countless verifiable miracles, is the Catholic Religion. There is no salvation found in any other religion. Just as there is only one God who is the only way to salvation (cf. John 14:6) there is only one religion established by Him for our salvation. Any other religion must necessarily be a false religion since its teachings contradict the Catholic religion. 

Logically speaking, there can, at most, be only one true religion. And the disunity and contradictions among the thousands of Protestant denominations violate the very principle of catholicity - not to mention apostolicity - which must be found in the true religion. With the advent of Protesantism in the 1500s, Luther stated that the Bible was open to individual interpretation, and the theological trail became crisscrossed with Biblical theorizing and harsh denunciations. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Anabaptists, and others all preached different pathways of what each described as the true road to salvation. None of them agreed. And none of their respective denominations agree. They all conflicted and continue to conflict with each other. Just as 1 + 1 must equal 2, it is impossible for all of the conflicting and varied protestant groups to all be true. The truth is actually found only in the Catholic Church.

Worshipping With Other Religions Is a Mortal Sin Against the First Commandment

The First Commandment enjoins us not only to believe in God and worship Him but also to trust Him and love Him, as well as to encourage others to do likewise. The Catechism of the Council of Trent explained this well when discussing the First of the 10 Commandments:

The (mandatory part) contains a precept of faith, hope and charity. For, acknowledging God to be immovable, immutable, always the same, we rightly confess that He is faithful and entirely just. Hence in assenting to His oracles, we necessarily yield to Him all belief and obedience. Again, who can contemplate His omnipotence, His clemency, His willing beneficence, and not repose in Him all his hopes? Finally, who can behold the riches of His goodness and love, which He lavishes on us, and not love Him? Hence the exordium and the conclusion used by God in Scripture when giving His commands: I, the Lord.

Next, the Catechism explains what the First Commandment forbids:

The (negative) part of this Commandment is comprised in these words: Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me. This the Lawgiver subjoins, not because it is not sufficiently expressed in the affirmative part of the precept, which means: Thou shalt worship Me, the only God, for if He is God, He is the only God; but on account of the blindness of many who of old professed to worship the true God and yet adored a multitude of gods. Of these there were many even among the Hebrews, whom Elias reproached with having halted between two sides [III Kngs xviii. 21], and also among the Samaritans, who worshipped the God of Israel and the gods of the nations [cf. IV Kngs xvii. 33].

Consequently, sins against the First Commandment include (among other things) failing to pray, failing to study the Faith, neglecting spiritual duties, taking part in the worship of non-Catholic religions, despair, presumption, idolatry, consulting fortune tellers, and observing superstitious practices like horoscopes. The Baltimore Catechism clearly reiterates this prohibition against spells and charms: “Those who make use of spells and charms, or who believe in dreams, in mediums, spiritists, fortune-tellers, and the like, sin against the First Commandment, because they attribute to creatures perfections which belong to God alone.” 

Worshiping with Protestants Is A Mortal Sin

Whispers in Restoration summarized the rationale for why active participation in non-Catholic (e.g., Protestant worship) is always forbidden. Similarly, assisting at Jewish seder meals and any other religious ceremony of non-Catholics is also strictly forbidden:

In considering the question of Catholics joining in non-Catholic worship, the constant and uniform testimony of Scripture and Tradition must be maintained: Catholics may never actively participate in non-Catholic worship. This prohibition follows chiefly from the First Commandment in light of the fact that all non-Catholic worship is false, actions standing contrary to right faith and in violation of both natural and divine law. Such acts are therefore objectively disordered, independent of the subjective culpability of those who engage in such worship.

A second, closely connected reason for this discipline is that of making a lie by demonstrating a false religious unity: for a Catholic to join in non-Catholic worship is to manifest a certain unity with that community, contradicting the true unity of the Church. This leads to a third reason of scandal: Catholics who actively engage in false worship give the objective impression that such disordered acts are permissible, even laudable, and in this way endanger right faith (on the part of Catholics) and confirm non-Catholics in their error. A final reason for this prohibition is that it involves an omission of fraternal charity: by engaging in false worship, the Catholic fails in his duty to mercifully instruct the ignorant, admonish the sinner, and share the Gospel.

It is therefore doctrinally indefensible to admit of a discipline – alien to the constant and uniform tradition of the Church – that would permit (much less encourage) the active participation of Catholics in non-Catholic worship. 

This prohibition was also clearly specified in Canon Law: “It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part in the sacred services of non-Catholics” (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1258, Paragraph 1). But this teaching long pre-dated the 1917 Code and was declared at multiple Councils:

“If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.” (3rd Council of Constantinople, 680 AD).

“And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly condemned, should be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith.” (Session 8 of the 5th Lateran Council, 1513 AD)

Several valid but non-Ecumenical councils further affirmed this same truth (along with other examples):

“No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics… It is not permitted to heretics to enter the house of God while they continue in heresy.” (Council of Laodicea during the 4th century, citing Canon 6)

“One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman, let him be excommunicated.” (Council of Carthage)

Can Catholics Attend Non-Catholic Funeral or Wedding Services?

What about non-passive worship? The author from Whispers in Restoration continues by noting that even passive (i.e., non-active) attendance at non-Catholic worship (e.g., at a funeral or wedding of a non-Catholic) would be limited and one which should be considered with the prudential advice of a Catholic priest:

Furthermore, it should be noted that traditionally, if Catholics might be permitted a certain passive participation in occasions of false worship, this was admitted only if the instance was: 1) an extraordinary circumstance, 2) commended by some grave reason, and 3) not overtly scandalous. The cautious qualifications here reflect the gravity of the act in question and recognition of the fact that any form of worship is informed by the beliefs of the worshipping community, demonstrating and effecting their religious unity as well. Thus for a Catholic, even passive participation in non-Catholic worship is a question that must be weighed with great caution.

One typical example given for such potentially permissible passive participation is that of a Catholic attending the non-Catholic funeral of a close relative or friend, provided that fraternal charity truly compels it and there be no danger of scandal or harm to right faith. Even here, it is noteworthy that such participation was only ever admitted as a possibility, and on the assumption that the person was seeking the direction of legitimate pastors in good faith, in order to act well.

Conclusion

We must reject religious indifferentism and seek to win as many souls from the devil and error as possible. By keeping the First Commandment and encouraging others to become Catholic, we observe this first and foundational Commandment. As such, no Catholic may ever participate in the religious worship of any non-Catholic religion—even those of Protestants. Catholics may only actively participate in Catholic worship without exception. Even if a family member goes to such a non-Catholic place of worship, the Catholic is not permitted to join, and if he does, he commits a serious mortal sin and risks excommunication.

Read more >>

Rejecting the Filioque Is A Heresy

It is evident with the crisis in the Catholic Church concerning not only the sexual abuse crisis but also the crisis in the Liturgy after Vatican II that some Catholics have become disillusioned with the current Catholic hierarchy. From an outside perspective, some might ask why they should remain Catholic and not convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, which is known for reverent, ancient liturgies under the name of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (or St. Basil the Great at some times). But on a deeper analysis, there is no refuge in Orthodoxy. While we often think of the Orthodox as schismatics and not as heretics, the doctrinal crisis has also affected them. In fact, the Orthodox are also heretics from the true Christian Faith in more than half a dozen ways as enumerated in the article "Should A Catholic Convert to Eastern Orthodoxy?"

"I am the Father are One" (John 10:30)

The Baltimore Catechism succinctly states, “In God there are three Divine persons, really distinct, and equal in all things – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” The Roman Catechism, the most authoritative catechism ever written, expresses the reality that Almighty God – the one and only God – is in fact a Trinity of Persons. The Catechism explains the role of the three Divine Persons in the Incarnation:

"It is a principle of Christian faith that whatever God does outside Himself in creation is common to the Three Persons, and that one neither does more than, nor acts without another. But that one emanates from another, this only cannot be common to all; for the Son is begotten of the Father only, and the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. Anything, however, which proceeds from them extrinsically is the work of the Three Persons without difference of any sort, and of this latter description is the Incarnation of the Son of God.

"Of those things, nevertheless, that are common to all, the Sacred Scriptures often attribute some to one Person, some to another. Thus, to the Father they attribute power over all things; to the Son, wisdom; to the Holy Ghost, love. Hence, as the mystery of the Incarnation manifests the singular and boundless love of God towards us, it is therefore in some sort peculiarly attributed to the Holy Ghost."

We do not believe in three gods but in one God. The Athanasian Creed, one of the earliest professions of faith, confessed since at least the fifth century, declares:

“Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. But there are not three gods, but one God. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Ghost is Lord. There are not three lords, but one Lord. For according to Christian truth, we must profess that each of the Persons individually is God; and according to Christian religion, we are forbidden to say that there are three gods or three lords.”

How is it, then, that there is a God the Father, a God the Son, and a God the Holy Ghost, but only one God? There is one divine substance, and three divine Persons. You and I are each only one substance and one person, but God is one substance and three Persons. Each of the Persons is fully divine and wholly possesses the divine substance. As Jesus Himself said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).

The Trinity is One. We do not confess three gods, but one God in three Persons, the “consubstantial Trinity.” The divine Persons do not share the one divinity among Themselves but each of Them is God whole and entire: “The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Ghost is, i.e., by nature one God.” In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215): “Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature.”

What is the Filioque Controversy?

The Great Schism, also known as the East-West Schism, refers to the split between the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church, which culminated in 1054 AD. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, and the legates of Pope Leo IX excommunicated each other. This formal declaration of excommunication marked the official schism between the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church. Papal authority, the Filioque controversy, and even the practice of Saturday fasting, among other differences, brought about this schism.

The Filioque controversy is the theological dispute that centers around the phrase "and the Son" (Latin: for Filioque) in the Nicene Creed, which originally stated that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father. The controversy arose between the Western and Eastern Christian churches.

In the early centuries of Christianity, the Nicene Creed was widely accepted in both the Eastern (Greek-speaking) and Western (Latin-speaking) parts of the Christian world. The original version of the Nicene Creed, as established at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, declared that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father. However, the Western Church later added the phrase "and the Son" (Filioque) to affirm the double procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son.

The Roman Catholic Church had first introduced the phrase “and the Son” (Filioque in Latin) at the Third Council of Toledo in 589. The Lyons Council II stated the doctrine firmly:

We profess faithfully and devotedly that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. This the holy Roman church, mother and mistress of all the faithful, has till now professed, preached and taught; this she firmly holds, preaches, professes and teaches; this is the unchangeable and true belief of the orthodox fathers and doctors, Latin and Greek alike. But because some, on account of ignorance of the said indisputable truth, have fallen into various errors, we, wishing to close the way to such errors, with the approval of the sacred council, condemn and reprove all who presume to deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, or rashly to assert that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and not as from one.

The Filioque Defended at the Ecumenical Councils

The Second Council of Lyons began on May 7, 1274, in the Cathedral of St. John. The Pope gave a sermon outlining his threefold plan for the Council — to unite the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches, to send a Crusade to the Holy Land and to reform the morals of the clergy. On June 29th, the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, the entire Council and the Greek ambassadors took part in a High Mass sung by the Pope. The Credo (Nicene Creed) was sung in Latin and then again in Greek with the phrase “Qui a Patre Filioque procedit” (who proceeds from the Father and the Son) sung three times. The Greek acceptance of this doctrine was an important step towards the reunion of the two Churches. 

Yet, debate continued for centuries as this was again a point of disagreement at the Council of Florence in 1438. The Emperor and Patriarch agreed that the debates should begin, and on October 8, 1438, the delegates discussed the addition of “From the Son” (Filioque) to the Nicene Creed by the Roman Catholic Church. This was discussed in fourteen public sessions until December 13, 1438. Mark Eugenicus, the Metropolitan of Ephesus, claimed that the addition of the Filioque clause to the Nicene Creed had been against the Council of Ephesus in 431. While Mark Eugenicus was the main speaker for the Greeks, the Western Church answered through several speakers. The sessions were lively but the Latin speakers were unable to change Mark’s position.

March 1439 saw eight sessions between the 2nd and 24th where the procession of the Holy Ghost was debated. The Western Church argued that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son while the Greek Church through Mark Eugenicus insisted that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father only. Giovanni da Montenero, a Dominican provincial of Lombardy proved the Latin Church’s assertion through the use of Scripture, the writings of the Western and Eastern Fathers and the Councils. Da Montenero’s presentation convinced some of his hearers but not all. The Greeks were not used to metaphysical arguments or syllogisms in their theological discussions but they were very impressed by da Montenero’s quotes from the Eastern and Western Fathers.

Through this, a glimmer of light appeared. The Eastern Saints had stated that the Holy Ghost was produced “from both” and “through the Son” while the Western Saints wrote that the Holy Spirit came “from the Father and the Son.” Now it is axiomatic that Saints, whether East or West, cannot err in matters of faith for they are inspired by the same Holy Spirit. Therefore the words of both the Eastern and Western Saints must be true even though they expressed themselves differently. Bessarion, the Metropolitan of Nicaea and Greek delegate, phrased it this way: "The western and eastern Saints do not disagree, for the same Spirit spoke in all the Saints. Compare their works and they will be found harmonious."

The majority of the Greek delegates voted in favor of the Filioque doctrine. There were further debates about other points of contention. It was decided that both unleaven and leaven bread would be allowed for the Eucharist. Purgatory was defined and the primacy of the Pope was affirmed. None of these questions were answered without lengthy debate and it was not until July 5, 1439, that first the Greeks and then the Latin delegates signed the decree of union. (Parts of the decree are included in the Documents section beginning “Let the heavens rejoice…”) Mark Eugenicus refused to sign the decree even after discussions with the Pope. On Monday, July 6, there was a procession to the Cathedral in Florence followed by a Pontifical Mass. Cesarini read out the decree in Latin, asking the Pope and Latin prelates if they agreed. They all proclaimed Placet (it is agreed upon). Bessarion read out the decree in Greek then requested the Emperor and the Greek prelates to acknowledge the truth of the decree. They also stated their agreement. A Te Deum was sung and the delegates left the Cathedral praising God with psalms. The Council continued and reunited the Roman Church with other Eastern Churches — the Armenians (1439), the Copts (1442), the Syrians (1444), the Chaldeans (Nestorians) and the Maronites of Cyprus (1445). In 1443, the Council left Florence to continue at the Lateran Palace in Rome.

The Greeks left for home on October 19, 1439, and arrived in Constantinople in February 1440. Sad news awaited the Emperor — his wife had died. This may explain why he failed to act promptly when some of the Eastern prelates who had remained behind in Constantinople refused to have anything to do with those who had agreed to a union with the Roman Church in Florence. There were soon more overt acts against the union of the Churches. Anthony, Metropolitan of Heraclea, made a public repudiation of his signature to the document in Florence. Mark Eugenicus wrote and spoke against the union. Early in 1441, a group of prelates who had signed the decree in Florence disavowed the union.

The new Patriarch of Constantinople, Metrophanes, (Patriarch Joseph had died at the end of the Council of Florence) declared in favor of the union and wrote an encyclical proclaiming it. However, his voice was not enough to overpower the flair and common touch of Mark Eugenicus’ writings. In 1444 the Papal fleet and army joined with Venice and Hungary to fight the Ottoman Turks. The Turkish army of about 60,000 men attacked the Christian armies of about 20,000 to 30,000 men at Varna on November 10, 1444. A brave effort to capture Murad II, the leader of the Ottomans, by the young King of Hungary and his 500 horsemen failed and the Christians were defeated. Many Christians were killed and the way to Constantinople was open to the Turks who did indeed capture the city in 1453. In the years 1450 to 1451, the Eastern Orthodox Church convened a Council in Constantinople and rejected the decree from the Council of Florence. The pro-union Patriarch was dismissed and the Orthodox Athanasius was appointed to take his place.

So what was the point of those years of arguments, of careful research, of endless discussions? Even though the union did not last, several points of doctrine were discussed and defined. Giovanni da Montenero’s masterful examination of the procession of the Holy Spirit through Scripture, the writings of the ancient Fathers and the Councils is just one example of the intricate and intense work that went into these definitions. For those years in Ferrara, Florence, and Rome, hundreds of men gathered to understand difficult theological concepts with the sincere wish to reunite. Perhaps in some hearts, this wish was joined with the hope for help in defeating the Turks or other less than purely selfless motives. Still, they continued — the illness of the elderly Patriarch and the Emperor, the monetary difficulties of the Pope, the homesickness and worry over their homeland, the frustrations between two different cultures — and all of these pressures delivered arguments that give us a deeper understanding of our faith. For more on the Councils, see the book "Nicea to Now."

The Church Fathers Defended the Filioque

Church Fathers in the West, such as St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430), supported the Filioque clause. St. Augustine emphasized the unity of the Trinity and argued that the Holy Ghost's procession from both the Father and the Son was consistent with the shared divine essence of the Trinity.

The Orthodox churches - and there are several that are not in communion even with one another - deny that the Holy Ghost, the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, proceeds from the Father and the Son. Those interested in the Church's treatment of this should look into Father Henry Chadwick's "The Early Church" or "Fr. John Meyendorff's "Byzantine Theology," which address this well. The Church Fathers all believed in the Filioque as well as shown in a powerful video debunking the errors of the Orthodox churches. All those who want to learn the truth should be compelled to watch that video.

Read more >>

The Errors of So-Called Protestant Reformers

Who Was Jan Huss?

Jan Hus (also known as John Hus) was a Czech religious philosopher and theologian who lived in the late 14th and early 15th centuries. He was born in Husinec, Bohemia (which is part of the modern-day Czech Republic) around 1369 AD and he died on July 6, 1415, in Konstanz, Germany.

Hus was a predecessor to Luther and his errors greatly affected the Faith. He believed that the Church had become corrupt and that its teachings had strayed from the true message of Jesus Christ. He was eventually excommunicated by the Church in 1411. Despite this, he continued to preach and gained a large following in Bohemia. In 1414, he was invited to the Council of Constance to defend his views, but he was arrested and tried for heresy. He was found guilty and burned at the stake on July 6, 1415. 

Hus's ideas had a significant influence on the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, particularly in his emphasis on the authority of the Bible and the priesthood of all believers. He is considered a national hero in the Czech Republic, where his ideas are still celebrated today, although the Czech Republic is known as one of the most atheistic countries in the world. The embrace of Protestantism ultimately leads to atheism.

What Did Huss Teach Against Catholic Doctrine?

The Council of Constance condemned 30 of Huss’s false teachings as heretical. They included the following:

1. There is only one holy universal church, which is the total number of those predestined to salvation. It therefore follows that the universal holy church is only one, inasmuch as there is only one number of all those who are predestined to salvation.

2. Paul was never a member of the devil, even though he did certain acts which are similar to the acts of the church's enemies.

3. Those foreknown as damned are not parts of the church, for no part of the church can finally fall away from it, since the predestinating love that binds the church together does not fail.

4. The two natures, the divinity and the humanity, are one Christ.

5. A person foreknown to damnation is never part of the holy church, even if he is in a state of grace according to present justice; a person predestined to salvation always remains a member of the church, even though he may fall away for a time from adventitious grace, for he keeps the grace of predestination.

6. The church is an article of faith in the following sense: to regard it as the convocation of those predestined to salvation, whether or not it be in a state of grace according to present justice.

7. Peter neither was nor is the head of the holy catholic church.

8. It is not necessary to believe that any particular Roman pontiff is the head of any particular holy church, unless God has predestined him to salvation.

9. The pope is not the manifest and true successor of the prince of the apostles, Peter, if he lives in a way contrary to Peter's. If he seeks avarice, he is the vicar of Judas Iscariot. Likewise, cardinals are not the manifest and true successors of the college of Christ's other apostles unless they live after the manner of the apostles, keeping the commandments and counsels of our lord Jesus Christ.

10. There is not the least proof that there must be one head ruling the church in spiritual matters who always lives with the church militant.

Grouping these together, we see two key issues: predestination and papal authority. He paved the way for Luther and his successors.

The Errors of Luther

One key figure in the Protestant Reformation was Martin Luther, a Catholic monk, who, led astray by private judgment, set himself against the Faith held for 1500 years. He decided that all Christians before him had been in error. Is it possible to believe that Jesus founded a Church to mislead the world, and then after 1500 years approved of over 500 contradictory church denominations founded by men? But, you may say, the Protestant Church is the Church of Christ, purified of error, and only this purified form dates from Luther. I answer that you must choose between Luther and Christ. Jesus said His Church would never teach error (John 14:26); Luther says it did teach error. If Luther is right, Christ is wrong; if Christ is right, Luther and all his followers are wrong.

Luther's chief errors are contained in the following propositions: (1) There is no supreme teaching power in the Church. (2) The temporal sovereign has supreme power in matters ecclesiastical. (3) There are no priests. (4) All that is to be believed is in the Bible. (5) Each one may interpret Holy Scripture as he likes. (6) Faith alone saves, good works are superfluous. (7) Man lost his free will by original sin. (8) There are no saints, no Christian sacrifice, no sacrament of confession, and no purgatory.

You can read more by clicking here.

Beyond Lutheranism

Martin Luther unleashed a holy war against the Church. Actual physical battles in defense of the Catholic Church exploded in Germany and abroad. His movement of protest was formally called Protestantism. The resultant physical conflicts in Germany alone caused the destruction of more than 1,000 monasteries and castles, the sacking of hundreds of peasant villages which were left in ashes, and the burning of the harvests of the nation. More than 100,000 were killed. Others, inspired by this easy and seductive way of finding salvation once for all times, were quick to pile on, each with a different interpretation of Scripture. 

Who Was Zwingli?

Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531) was a Swiss theologian and the leader of the Protestant Reformation in Switzerland. Zwingli's religious ideas emerged independently of Luther's in the early 16th century, yet both sought to attack the Christian Faith with a radically different doctrine than that which was preached for 15 centuries beforehand.

Zwingli took his own interpretation to Switzerland, where he taught that the actual body and blood of Christ was not present in the Eucharist, but only a representation. His interpretation of Scripture caused further consternation between not only the Catholic Church and his adherents, but also between Zwinglians and Luther’s adherents. John Calvin taught that only certain people were predestined to be saved. No amount of work by one not predestined could change God’s mind. Those not predestined were going to Hell. And as Protestantism spread, so did a myriad of different interpretations of Scripture emerge.

What Did Zwingli Teach Against Catholic Doctrine?

The Bible As the Sole Authority: Zwingli emphasized the authority of the Bible as the sole source of religious truth in a rejection of any other authority. Those familiar with the errors of sola-Scriptura can easily refute this since the entire history of the Church showed that authority was never found directly in the Scriptures. Even the Bible itself states: "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."

Rejection of Church Tradition: Zwingli challenged the veneration of saints, celibacy of the clergy, and the use of images and relics. All of these ideas of his can be condemned through a study of history, Scriptural authority (ironically), and the teaching of the Apostles and their successors.

Denial of the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist: The alleged “Reformers” were unanimous in rejecting Transubstantiation and the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, and they argued endlessly over the Real Presence. Zwingli denied any Presence and called the sacrament a commemoration or symbol. Calvin accepted a ‘presence of power’ or spiritual presence. Luther believed in the Real Presence but not in Transubstantiation but a separate false doctrine called Consubstantiation. Zwingli actually so vehemently opposed Calvin and Luther that he declared them damned and ministers of Satan. Luther eventually wished to remove the doctrine and, in his words, give “a great smack in the face to popery,” but he declared that the Scriptures were too clear on the Real Presence of Christ to remove the doctrine.

Rejection of the Merits of Penance: Zwingli directed multiple attacks against the merits of good works, including fasting and abstinence, through the infamous “The Affair of Sausage” in 1522. He audaciously claimed that since Sola Scriptura was the only authority, sausages should be eaten publicly in Lent in defiance.

Who Was John Calvin?

John Calvin was born in Noyon, France, and initially studied law, but his interests soon turned to theology after he learned of Martin Luther’s new religion. In the early 1530s, Calvin fled from France to Basel, Switzerland, where he began to develop his theological ideas and wrote "Institutes of the Christian Religion” which was filled with the errors of predestination, sola scriptura, and others which became the foundation of the “Reformed” protestant sects.

In 1536, Calvin was invited to Geneva, Switzerland, where he became a leading figure in the city's Reformation. He sought to implement his ideas of church governance and moral discipline, which led to conflicts. After being initially expelled from Geneva, he was later invited back, and during his time there, he helped establish a theocratic government that emphasized a strong connection between Protestantism and state. Thankfully God raised up St. Francis de Sales to combat Calvinism who, by God’s grace, converted 72,000 heretics back to the Catholic Faith.

Calvin's teachings spread throughout Europe, and his influence extended to various Reformed movements in different countries, such as the Netherlands, Scotland, England, and parts of Germany. His theological ideas, known as Calvinism, became a major force in shaping Presbyterianism, Congregationalism, and Reformed Baptists.

What Did Calvin Teach Against Catholic Doctrine?

The Bible As the Sole Authority: Like Luther and Zwingli, Calvin emphasized the authority of the Bible as the sole source of religious truth in a rejection of any other authority. He rejected the Catholic view that tradition, along with Scripture, held equal authority in matters of faith. For Calvin, Scripture alone was sufficient for understanding God's will and receiving divine guidance. And like those who came before him, Calvin’s view is refuted by both Scripture itself and 1,500 years of actual Church history.

Justification by Faith Alone: Calvin, like other protestant founders, held to the doctrine of "sola fide," or justification by faith alone. He taught that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone and does not require us to live out our faith through any works, which contradict the teaching of our Lord directly.

Denial of the Visible Hierarchy Established by Christ: He opposed the hierarchical system of the Church which was established by Christ to have a physical earth, including the authority of the pope.

Rejection of Church Tradition: Calvin objected to the veneration of saints and the use of images and relics. 

Denial of the Sacraments: Calvin recognized only two Sacraments— Baptism and the Eucharist – but he viewed even those two Sacraments as symbolic acts that pointed to spiritual realities and rejected the idea of Sacraments as channels of divine grace which affect what they signify. He therefore denied the Real Presence of Christ, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and even the efficacy of Baptism for Salvation. Those who were baptized as children in denominations that follow Calvin’s ideas should be conditionally baptized upon conversion to the Catholic Faith.

Predestination: One of Calvin's most controversial and egregious teachings was the doctrine of predestination. He believed in the concept of "double predestination," which asserted that God predestined some individuals to be saved (the elect) and others to be damned (the reprobate). He, therefore, rejected free will since a person is destined to either heaven or hell and cannot change their fate.  

Various Congregational, Reformed, and Presbyterian churches look to these errors as their basis. We have a responsibility to work for the conversion of those ensnared in the errors of Calvin, and to that end, let us invoke the patronage of St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen who was martyred by the Calvinists for his defense of the Catholic Faith.

There is No Uniformity in Protestantism

Once Luther stated that the Bible was open to individual interpretation, the theological trail became crisscrossed with Biblical theorizing and harsh denunciations. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Anabaptists, and others all preached different pathways of what each described as the true road to salvation. And they all conflicted with each other. Just as 1 + 1 must equal 2, it is impossible for all of the conflicting and varied protestant groups to all be true. The truth is actually found only in the Catholic Church.

Read more >>

May A Catholic Pray for the Soul of HM Queen Elizabeth II?

"It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins" (2 Maccabees 12:46).

There Is No Salvation Outside of the Church

The Church has always taught that there is no salvation outside of the Church (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus). This is a dogma of the Faith and must be believed. It has been affirmed by Popes and saints. For instance, Pope Eugene IV in Cantate Domino in 1441 AD declares:

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pours out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remains within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

And St. Augustine earlier wrote: "No one can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Church, you can find everything except salvation. You can have dignities, you can have Sacraments, you can sing "'Alleluia,' answer 'Amen,' have the Gospels, have faith in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and preach it, too. But never can you find salvation except in the Catholic Church."

Praying for the Souls of Non-Catholics Is Not Contrary to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

The Church encourages and allows private prayer for anyone, even those who died as non-Catholics since we do not know the state of their soul at the moment of death. Miraculous conversions have been won before by people who seemed to be unconscious but who, through miracles, were given the grace to choose the Faith at the moment of death. It does happen and thus we must pray for the salvation of all souls, especially for their conversion to salvation at the moment of death. And since God sees our prayers outside of time, we can pray for anyone's last-minute conversion, even long after their death. In effect, the soul will then truly die as a Catholic even if in the eyes of the world they appeared to die separated from the Faith. This is my particular prayer for Queen Elizabeth II.

The Church Permits Prayers for the Dead for Everyone

The Catholic Encyclopedia makes this clear:

"There is no restriction by Divine or ecclesiastical law as to those of the dead for whom private prayer may be offered — except that they may not be offered formally either for the blessed in heaven or for the damned. Not only for the faithful who have died in external communion with the Church, but for deceased non-Catholics, even the unbaptized, who may have died in the state of grace, one is free to offer his personal prayers and good works; nor does the Church's prohibition of her public offices for those who have died out of external communion with her affect the strictly personal element in her minister's acts. For all such she prohibits the public offering of the Sacrifice of the Mass (and of other liturgical offices); but theologians commonly teach that a priest is not forbidden to offer the Mass in private for the repose of the soul of any one who, judging by probable evidence, may be presumed to have died in faith and grace, provided, at least, he does not say the special requiem Mass with the special prayer in which the deceased is named, since this would give the offering a public and official character."

It is true that the offering of prayers and sacrifices for the souls of those in Hell is of no use. But since we do not know the state of a soul at death, we can nevertheless in an act of charity offer prayers for all of the departed. Only God judges the heart and knows the state of the soul at death (cf. 1 Samuel 16:7).

Requiem Masses Are Not Permitted for Non-Catholics

While we may and should pray for the salvation of all mankind, we do know that the public offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the souls of non-Catholics is not permitted. Canon 1240 in the 1917 Code explicitly forbid the privilege of ecclesiastical burial rites to anyone who died as a known member of a heretical sect. Even if this distinction is not mentioned in the modernist 1983 Code, we know the 1917 Code expressed the wisdom of centuries of Catholic dogma.

This is similarly affirmed, with the distinction of public versus private prayer, in the American Ecclesiastical Review from 1896 which answers the question of whether a priest may perform funeral rites over the dead by answering:

"No, a priest cannot lawfully perform the ceremony of burial for a deceased non-Catholic or one who, having been baptized a Catholic, has defected. The presence of a priest officiating at the burial cannot be construed as a civil function, for the act of consigning a person to his grave requires no authorized witness, like the contract of marriage. The burial service of the Catholic ritual is a religious function in which we cannot share with those who deny the truth of our faith and worship, for we should implicitly, by our service, sanction the protest of the deceased against the Catholic religion. Of course, there are cases where a priest may and should bury those who are not of his faith, just as he may pray for them privately." 

This is the distinction between public and private prayer. Hence, the words of Pope St. Gregory II in 731 AD are referring to public worship:

“You ask for advice on the lawfulness of making offerings for the dead.  The teaching of the Church is this – that every man should make offerings for those who died as true Christians [Catholics]… But he is not allowed to do so for those who die in a state of sin even if they were Christians.” 

Conclusion

May the souls of all the faithful departed rest in peace. There is no salvation outside of the Church. But God alone knows the state of a soul at death. Thus in our charity and love for all man - since we desire all to be saved - we continue to pour forth private prayers for the conversion and salvation and mitigation of Purgatory for everyone, even those who in our eyes died outside the Church but who may have made a perfect act of contrition or who became Catholic by divine intervention right before the moment of God. 

God have mercy on them all, especially on the soul of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her ancestors. And may her heirs return the British Crown to public reconciliation with the Roman Catholic Church and the See of Peter.

Read more >>

God Desires All Men to Be Saved

God does not leave the souls of virtuous pagans who obey the natural law to eternal death. In one example, in the 1600’s Franciscan missionaries arrived in the New World in modern day Mexico and came upon a group of natives. They were intent on teaching them the Faith and to their amazement, they already knew it without having yet met any European. How could this be? The natives revealed that a woman would appear to them every Friday to teach them and that she had done so for the past five years. After describing her, the Franciscans recognized it as Sister Maria of Agreda. 

After returning home and notifying the bishop regarding this astonishing event, Venerable Maria of Agreda was questioned and asked to swear under oath if this was true. It was. God had sent her to instruct these pagans by means of bilocation on account of their obedience to the natural law. As related in the Life of Venerable Mary of Jesus of Agreda:

“This holy virgin burned with a most ardent love for God and for the salvation of souls. One day, she beheld in a vision all the nations of the world. She saw the greater part of men were deprived of God's grace and running headlong to everlasting perdition. She saw how the Indians of Mexico put fewer obstacles to the grace of conversion than any other nation who were out of the Catholic Church, and how God, on this account, was ready to show mercy to them. Hence, she redoubled her prayers and penances to obtain for them the grace of conversion. God heard her prayers. He commanded her to teach the Catholic religion to those Mexican Indians. From that time, she appeared, by way of bilocation, to the savages, not less than five hundred times, instructing them in all the truths of our holy religion, and performing miracles in confirmation of these truths. When all were converted to the faith, she told them that religious priests would be sent by God to receive them into the Church by baptism. As she had told, so it happened. God, in his mercy, sent to these good Indians several Franciscan fathers, who were greatly astonished when they found those savages fully instructed in the Catholic doctrine. When they asked the Indians who had instructed them, they were told that a holy virgin appeared among them many times and taught them the Catholic religion and confirmed it by miracles.”

Pray for Pagan Souls

God desires that all men be saved. He desires for us to pray for the souls of all pagans – those still alive in faraway lands and those who have died. We can pray for all the pagans who still die in far-off places who have never heard of Christianity and who died separated from the visible Church. We pray that their souls are not lost but are united in a mystical way with the Church before their death.

Read more >>

Christ Abolished the Dietary Laws of the Jews

Unclean Foods Per the Jews Included More Than Just Pork

St. Paul in Galatians 5:1-6 stated that the observance of circumcision and the requirements of the Law of Moses from the Old Testament were abrogated and no longer binding. The only remaining elements of the Old Testament that are required are the moral law – the ceremonial laws are not. And that is why the requirement for wearing tassels on your clothes (cf. Deuteronomy 22:12), abstaining from pork or shellfish, or not using two different species to plow a field at the same time are abrogated.  The Jews count 613 different laws, but all ceremonial laws do not apply any longer since the New Testament has completed and fulfilled the Old Testament. 

The laws of Leviticus have been abolished. Only the moral laws of the Old Testament (e.g. the Ten Commandments) remain. The Apostles and the Early Church definitively taught that the Law of Moses on dietary restrictions no longer applied. 

Why Do Catholics Then Have Certain Restrictions on Days like Fridays?

To ignore the law of fasting or abstinence from meat is a grave sin. Why? Because it is an act of disobedience to God's Church. We do not abstain from meat on Fridays for instance because the meat is unclean or evil. It is the act of disobedience that is evil. As Fr. Michael Müller remarks in his Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine from 1874: "It is not the food, but the disobedience that defiles a man." 

To eat meat on a forbidden day unintentionally, for instance, is no sin. As the Scriptures affirm it is not what goes into one's mouth that defiles a man but that disobedience which comes from the soul (cf. Matthew 15:11). But to eat meat on a Friday or to refuse the law of fasting on required days is a serious sin because of disobedience. 

A Review of The Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 1136. How many kinds of laws had the Jews before the coming of Our Lord?

A. Before the coming of Our Lord the Jews had three kinds of laws:

1. Civil laws, regulating the affairs of their nation;

2. Ceremonial laws, governing their worship in the temple;

3. Moral laws, guiding their religious belief and actions.

Q. 1137. To which of these laws did the Ten Commandments belong?

A. The Ten Commandments belong to the moral law, because they are a compendium or short account of what we must do in order to save our souls; just as the Apostles' Creed is a compendium of what we must believe.

Q. 1138. When did the civil and ceremonial laws of the Jews cease to exist?

A. The civil laws of the Jews ceased to exist when the Jewish people, shortly before the coming of Christ, ceased to be an independent nation. The ceremonial laws ceased to exist when the Jewish religion ceased to be the true religion; that is, when Christ established the Christian religion, of which the Jewish religion was only a figure or promise.

Q. 1139. Why were not also the moral laws of the Jews abolished when the Christian religion was established?

A. The moral laws of the Jews could not be abolished by the establishment of the Christian religion because they regard truth and virtue and have been revealed by God, and whatever God has revealed as true must be always true, and whatever He has condemned as bad in itself must be always bad.

Read more >>

Why the Catholic Priesthood Is Necessary

Having read several articles in liberal publications on the need to abolish the priesthood, I have realized that most people in our world fail to understand what the priesthood is. The Catholic priesthood is not a social club. It is not a civic organization. It is not a noble charitable work. It is not a committee or a group overseeing the Church that could be switched out. On the contrary, the Catholic priesthood is an institution which God Himself founded as necessary for our salvation, and as such, no one other than God may abolish it.

Why is the Catholic Priesthood Necessary?

The Catechism of St. Pius X explains: “The Catholic Priesthood is necessary in the Church, because without it the faithful would be deprived of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and of the greater part of the sacraments; they would have no one to instruct them in the faith; and they would be as sheep without a shepherd, a prey to wolves; in short, the Church, such as Christ instituted it, would no longer exist.”

Without the priesthood, we would have no ability to have our sins absolved after Baptism. If the priesthood were to die out, there would be no Holy Eucharist or Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The perfect oblation that is offered on the altar every single day throughout the world in satisfaction for sins (cf. Malachi 1:11) would die out. Confirmation would no longer occur. There would be no teaching authority to guide the Church. Last Rites would never be imparted again to the dying.
And if no bishops remained on earth, holy orders would end. The priesthood would end. We truly would be a flock without a shepherd and the wolves would devour us. Only the Sacrament of Baptism and Holy Matrimony would be able to continue. All the other Sacraments which require a validly ordained priest would cease.

The Lord Jesus Christ Instituted the Catholic Priesthood

When did our Lord institute Holy Orders? The Catechism of St. Pius X again explains: “Jesus Christ instituted the Sacerdotal Order at the Last Supper when He conferred on the Apostles and their successors the power of consecrating the Blessed Eucharist. Then on the day of His resurrection He conferred on them the power of remitting and retaining sin, thus constituting them the first Priests of the New Law in all the fullness of their power.”

At the Last Supper, Our Savior's words, “Take and eat, this is My body... take and drink this is My blood” (Matthew 26:26-28) truly transformed the bread and wine into His Body and Blood. In yet another act of humility, Christ gave Himself to us through this Sacrament — the Holy Eucharist. The apostles alone were given this power which they have passed down through apostolic succession.
Our priests today have this same power to stand at the altar on account of their ordination. Our same priests have the power to forgive sins (cf. John 20:21-23) and baptize (cf. Matthew 28:19) as well as to bless and preach by virtue of this unbroken chain back to the Last Supper. A priest is necessary for our salvation and even a priest needs a priest for his own salvation since priests also must go to Confession. Without the priesthood, our religion would essentially end.

The Gates of Hell Will Not Prevail Against the Priesthood

Yet we must not despair of such a future day. Continuing on, the Catechism of St. Pius X assures us that despite all the threats that will assail the priesthood, the sad day when the priesthood is abolished will never occur: “In spite of the war that hell wages against it, the Catholic Priesthood will last until the end of time, because Jesus Christ has promised that the powers of hell shall never prevail against His Church.”

We ought to work for the advancement of the rites of the Catholic Church and labor for the salvation of our fellow man. We should also frequently pray to our Lord to raise up new vocations who will labor in His vineyard – a vineyard of souls. Pope Pius XII wrote a prayer for vocations that we can print out and pray daily. 

In fact, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter’s April 2017 Newsletter stated that praying for vocations is not optional. It is required of us:

The Lord Jesus commands that we foster vocations, "Ask the master of the harvest to send out labourers for his harvest" (Mt 9:38).  Praying for priestly vocations is not optional.  This might be a revelation for many a good Catholic.  Praying for priestly vocations is not a matter of spiritual taste or preference.  Rather, praying for priestly vocations manifests our shared responsibility in obtaining from God the many "other Christs" - the priests needed chiefly for offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and for reconciling penitents, but also for evangelizing, for instructing converts, and for performing the countless works of education, culture, and charity granted by God to the world through His holy priesthood.

Why Does Satan Attack the Priesthood Then?

A study of Catholic Doctrine illustrates both by reasoning and through miracles that the Catholic Church alone is God’s established religion. God, in His goodness and generosity, showers us with proofs of the accuracy of the Catholic Church’s doctrines.  And this too is why satan is not attacking Lutherans, or Baptists, or Muslims.  He is attacking the Catholic priesthood. He is infiltrating our seminaries and leading men ordained to the priesthood of Jesus Christ to betray their office and sexual assault children – an absolute diabolical and unspeakable blasphemy.  And satan does this because in the Catholic Church is the truth.  Why would he waste his time on attacking those souls who are already under his rule? 

The sexual abuse crisis, which has caused so many to distrust the Church, illustrates just how much we must pray for our priests and bishops. Satan continues to work for the overthrow of the Church and writers like Marie Carre in "AA-1025" describe the infiltration of seminaries and the priesthood by communists and atheists who sought to bring it down from within. But they will not succeed. Despite their efforts to scandalize the faithful and to lead souls astray, God will continue to help steer Holy Mother Church and give us good priests who will labor for the good of souls. Those priests – often the traditional Catholic priests who sacrifice so much to offer the Latin Mass – are the true priests. Let us pray for them and for more vocations. And let us pray for all those who have left the Church due to satan’s attacks. May they be reconciled soon and come back to the Sacrament of Confession, made possible because of the priesthood.

Read more >>

Does God Hear Your Prayers If You Are In Mortal Sin?

Yes. We distinguish between sanctifying (habitual) grace and actual graces. Now the name ‘actual’ grace might make it sound like we’re implying other graces are not ‘real’ graces, but they are named ‘actual’ because they refer to particular and passing actions, whereas sanctifying grace refers to the state of being, the habit of holiness that persists after baptism as long as we do not sin mortally. It’s the difference between doing things, performing certain actions, and being human or, with sanctifying grace, being a child of God.

Mortal sin takes us out of the state of grace. We lose sanctifying grace and the theological virtue of divine charity, but God could still speak to us because those would be actual graces, passing actions that God can grant even to someone who is not in the state of grace. And He might grant them precisely to spur us to repentance, to Confession, and a return to sanctifying grace.

Source: Fr. Schmidt's Blog

Read more >>

A Brief History of Catholic Catechisms

The word “catechism” today is often used only in reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, originally published in 1992.  Yet, this catechism often fails in many respects for converts and even for adult Catholics: its verbose language, its frequent references to the novelties of Vatican II as opposed to actual dogmatic works, and the recent errors promulgated by Pope Francis in regard to capital punishment.  In fact, the number of religious education programs that feel they must teach children from this catechism is frightening – no young child could attempt to learn from a text that is best suited for an undergraduate or master’s course.  So why do we either water down the faith or teach children that the only true source of doctrine is the 1992 text?

Unbeknown to many, the new catechism is far from the only catechism.  St. Peter Canisius, who was instrumental in fighting Protestantism in Germany, wrote the first catechism in 1555, known as the "Catechism of St. Peter Canisius."  Shortly afterward, in 1566, the Roman Catechism was commissioned by the Council of Trent, overseen by St. Charles Borromeo, and issued by His Holiness Pope St. Pius V.  It remains the most authoritative catechism in print.  Known as the “Roman Catechism,” the “Catechism of St. Pius V,” or also as the “Catechism of the Council of Trent,” this book has unfortunately fallen into extreme disuse.

The decades after the Council of Trent saw Fr. Laurence Vaux "Catechism of Christian Doctrine" published in 1567 and St. Robert Bellarmine's Catechism published in 1597. 

Fr. Henry Tuberville followed with the Douay Catechism in 1649, which was modeled on the Catechism of the Council of Trent and written to help combat English Protestantism.  It remains one of the clearest English catechisms ever written as it contains a simple-to-understand question and answer format. 

Fast forward to 1781 and Bishop George Hay published the extensive and heavily Scripturally based "Hay's Catechism" with a longer question and answer format.  Fr. Stephen Keenan in 1846 published his catechism with the purpose of countering heresies of the time especially in regard to papal infallibility.  And one year later in 1847, master catechism Fr. Joseph Deharbe wrote the most accomplished German catechism ever written called "A complete catechism of the Catholic religion."

Throughout the mid-1800s additional catechisms by Fr. Francis Jamison, St. John Neumann, Fr. Patrick Power, Fr. Michael Muller, and Cardinal Gibbons were also published.  Then in 1885, the Bishops of the United States enjoined by order of the Third Council of Baltimore the Baltimore Catechism, which was the most widely used catechism in the United States for over a century up until Vatican II. 

The notion that the “Catechism” is the exclusive right to the 1992 text promulgated by Pope John Paul II is absurd.  In fact, as the crisis in the Church deepened, Pope Benedict XVI remarked while still a Cardinal of the failure of modern catechesis in the Church when he said in an interview with Zenit in 2003, “It is evident that today religious ignorance is enormous; suffice it to speak with the new generations. Evidently, in the post-conciliar period, the concrete transmission of the contents of the Christian faith was not achieved.”  This echoed his previous sentiments which he published before the New Catechism was written when the future Pontiff wrote, “The catastrophic failure of modern catechesis is all too obvious.”

Some of these older Catechisms, like the Baltimore Catechism and the Roman Catechism, are still in print. Others that have fallen out of print are being published once again by the work of Tradivox. And organizations like CatechismClass.com are combining passages from various Catechisms along with Scripture and relevant prayers and commentary to teach the Faith in a way that resonates with more people. Whispers of Restoration lists 20 older catechisms and links to them in an online format.

As the many catechisms show us, the Faith is the same yet it can often be explained in slightly different ways. Whereas one definition or example may teach one person, another person may be better able to understand it explained in a different way. The Faith is changeless and timeless but we can use many different catechisms to teach the one, same Faith.

Check out some of these older catechisms and resources. Share them with your family and friends.

Read more >>

Today You Will Be With Me in Paradise

"To be with Christ is life, and where Christ is, there is His kingdom" (St. Augustine)

The Good Thief

Traditionally known as St. Dismas, the Good Thief, who died on the Cross alongside our Lord is mentioned in only the Gospel according to St. Luke. While all four Gospels reference thieves also crucified along with our Lord (Matthew 27:38, Mark 15:27–28,32, Luke 23:33, John 19:18), only the Gospel of St. Luke mentions the Good Thief. 

The Gospel of St. Matthew and St. Mark reference that the thieves reviled our Lord. Only St. Luke mentions the conversion of St. Dismas:

And one of those robbers who were hanged, blasphemed him, saying: If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil. And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

Faith Alone? Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?

This account is not an endorsement of the false doctrine of salvation by faith alone. Catholics know that we are saved by God's good grace alone. We receive grace in our souls at Baptism when original sin is removed from our souls and we become justified and receive the Holy Ghost. We only lose God's grace by committing a mortal sin. Mortal sin is possible through sins of word, deed, thought, or omission. Failing to help someone in need, admonish a sinner, attend Mass, etc could all be mortal sins. It is not works that save a man. And it is not faith alone either. Grace alone saves a man.

How was St. Dismas justified without the Sacrament of Baptism? First, our Lord had not yet been resurrected. It was not until right before our Lord's Ascension that the law of Baptism became necessary. On this point, the Catechism of the Council of Trent states:

“Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.”

Yet secondly, we are also wise to remember the three forms of Baptism: Water, Blood, and Desire. We ordinarily think of Baptism as the Sacrament of Baptism which consists of the proper words said while a person is submerged or sprinkled three times with water. But, Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire are both equally valid. If someone dies as a martyr for the Faith who had not yet received the Sacrament of Baptism, that person has still received God's grace through their martyrdom, which is a Baptism of Blood. And likewise, a catechumen who desires conversion who dies before receiving the actual Sacrament of Baptism with water still receives justification through Baptism. In such a way, we see in St. Dismas the effect of Baptism of Desire. We see in the record of saints from the early Church many martyrs and catechumens who are listed in the catalog of saints who never received Baptism by water. Yet, they are justified still through these other forms of Baptism.

St. Dismas teaches us the importance of interior conversion and how God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments.

Today You Will Be With Me in Paradise

When our Lord told St. Dismas, as they both hung dying on the Cross, "Today You Will Be With Me in Paradise," what did the Lord mean? Did He mean that after they died both would be reunited in Heaven?

No. Heaven at that moment was not opened due to the sin of Adam and Eve which closed Heaven. Christ did not yet pay the price for sin to open Heaven. In fact, the opening of Heaven did not occur until Ascension Day, forty days after our Lord's Resurrection, when Christ the Victor over death led the souls of the just who died beforehand into Heaven after Him. It was fitting that Our Lord, the conqueror of death, would be the first to open the gates of Heaven.

To be with Christ is to be in paradise. Christ and the blessed saints in Limbo including the Good Thief entered Heaven 40 days later when Our Lord ascended and opened the doors of Heaven. Today both would die as their bodies and souls would separate. St. Dismas' soul would go to the Limbo of the Fathers. This place, where the just from the Old Testament waited for Heaven to be opened, welcomed Christ in their midst today. Adam, Eve, Moses, Ezekiel, St. Joseph, and countless others today saw our Lord come to them. The messiah, who some had waited thousands of year for, was at last here. And St. Dismas joined them.

The words of The Lord (This day ... in paradise) must therefore be understood not of an earthly or corporeal paradise, but of that spiritual paradise in which all may be, said to be, who are in the enjoyment of the divine glory. Hence to place, the thief went up with Christ to heaven, that he might be with Christ, as it was said to him: "Thou shalt be with Me in Paradise"; but as to reward, he was in Paradise, for he there tasted and enjoyed the divinity of Christ, together with the other saints. (The Life of The Good Thief, Msgr. Gaume, Loreto Publications, 1868).

On the evening of Good Friday, our Lord descended unto the dead. Christ was in their midst. And to be with Christ is paradise. And that is what we learn from these words of our Lord.

Read more >>

Miracles Prove the Catholic Church’s Divine Origin

The Miracle of Saint Dominic by Biagio Bellotti

Reason & Miracles

As the book “My Catholic Faith” summarizes: “Divine Revelation comes down to us by two means: through Holy Scripture, written down under divine inspiration, and through Tradition, handed down orally from Apostolic times.”

Those are the two means of divine revelation we have to know the Faith, but we have tools to help us further understand the Faith that has been revealed by God.  One of those tools is our ability as human beings to reason.  Some things can be known by reason alone.  For example, it can be known by reason alone that God exists.  This is affirmed explicitly at the Council of Trent.  As we examine the created world, as we consider the perfection of creation, as we understand that there had to be a First Cause who started all things, we can use our reason to understand that there must be a divine being.  Reason does not inform us who that being is.  It just helps us understand that something doesn’t come from nothing.  That is our reason working. Reasoning should also be informed by strong, scholastic philosophy.

Another tool at our disposal to bring us to know these truths is the immense generosity of God in His miracles.  The miracles of God further prove the divine origin of the Catholic Faith.  So, by two such tools, namely the use of reason and of external proofs of miracles, we can come to believe what the Church teaches.

The Catholic Church as the Bastion of Miracles

The Catholic Church is the great bastion of miracles.  We have numerous miracles testifying to the authenticity of the Catholic Faith:

• The stigmata: Dozens of saints have had the visible marks of Christ on their body. 
• Eucharistic miracles: We have dozens of miracles, some of which have been scientifically examined, testifying to the truth that the Eucharistic Host is actually Christ’s flesh and blood. 
• Incorruptible Saints: We also have over 150 incorruptible saints whose incorruptibly defies all of science. 
• Miracles Worked Through the Saints: The blood of St. Januarius frequently liquefies. Throughout the centuries thousands of reported miracles have occurred at the tombs of the saints. St. Benedict and St. Dominic, among others, by the power of God resurrected people from the dead. Look up the lives of St. Padre Pio, St. Gregory the Wonderworker, St. Charbel, and countless others have performed miracles. To be canonized a saint, a miracle must be performed and found unexplained by science. The Miracles of the Saints are numerous enough to fill volumes of books. Over 400 saints have raised the dead to life.
• The Miracles Performed through the Blessed Virgin Mary: Over 70 people are been healed of incurable diseases in the waters of Lourdes.  The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima was witnessed by over 70,000 people. And we have many miracles of the Rosary including the Miracle at Hiroshima. Many other such Rosary miracles have occurred. The Miraculous Medal and the Brown Scapular continue to work miracles up to this day unexplained by science.

Do we have reported Eucharistic miracles in Lutheran churches or Anglican ones?  No.  Yet in the Catholic Church we do. Over 500 people have had the visible (or invisible) wounds of Christ known as the Stigmata on their body including St. Catherine of Siena, St. John of God, St. Francis, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, St. Marie of the Incarnation, and St. Pio of Pietrelcina.  We also have over 150 incorruptible saints whose incorruptibly defies all of science.  And we have dozens of confirmed and verified apparitions in history not only of our Blessed Mother but also of St. Michael the Archangel and other saints. And when miracles are examined by modern science, they still find them unexplainable. 

As the website, ProtestantErrors.com illustrates, the true Church ought to be resplendent with miracles and only the Catholic Church has been shown to be accompanied with repeated first-class miracles.

Satan Knows This. That's Why He Attacks the Catholic Church

God, in His goodness and generosity, showers us with proofs of the accuracy of the Catholic Church’s doctrines.  And this too is why Satan is not attacking Lutherans, or Baptists, or Muslims.  He is attacking the Catholic priesthood; he is infiltrating our seminaries and leading men ordained to the priesthood of Jesus Christ to betray their office and sexual assault children – an absolutely diabolical and unspeakable blasphemy.  And Satan does this because in the Catholic Church is the truth.  Why would he waste his time on attacking those souls who are already under his rule?

Let us always be prepared to give an account of our faith (cf. 1 Peter 3:15), and we can do this by understanding the truth of the Catholic Faith as seen through both intellectual arguments as well as through miracles. By these means, let us be missionaries to all we encounter.

Read more >>

How Can I Be Forgiven From Venial Sins Without Confession?

What is the difference between Mortal & Venial Sin?

Sins can be grouped into two categories: mortal and venial sins. This is attested to in the Scriptures which mention this distinction in 1 John 5:16-18:

"If anyone sees his brother committing a sin that is not a deadly sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not deadly. There is sin which is deadly; I do not say one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not deadly. We know that anyone born of God does not sin, but He who is born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him."

Mortal sin is "deadly" sin since it destroys satisfying grace in the soul. The consequence of this is the most serious - to die with mortal sin on the soul is the only determinant if a soul will go to Hell for all eternity or not.

All sins are venial sins unless they are mortal sins. And to be a mortal sin, it must meet 3 characteristics:

1. Grave Matter: The act must involve a serious offense or violation of a moral law. Not all sins are considered grave matter; they must be significant in their nature. Examinations of Conscience will help determine which sins are mortal. Offenses against the Commandments or the Church's precepts are mortal sins. For an examination just on venial sins, the guide by St. Anthony Mary Claret is a good resource.
2. Full Knowledge: The person committing the sin must have a clear understanding that what they are doing is a serious offense against God's law. Ignorance or lack of awareness may reduce culpability.
3. Deliberate Consent: The individual must commit the sinful act with full and voluntary intent. Coercion or external factors that compromise free will may diminish culpability. If someone commits a sin while sleepwalking, for instance, there would likely be no sin committed.

The Forgiveness of Mortal Sins: The Sacrament of Confession

The Sacrament of Confession is the means that our Divine Lord has established so that we may receive forgiveness for our sins. This is the ordinary means of forgiveness. Ordinarily, this means that only in Confession can a soul in the state of mortal sin be restored to a life of grace and friendship with God as a result of the way that God has ordered the world to work. Q. 780 of the Baltimore Catechism states:

What sins are we bound to confess? A. We are bound to confess all our mortal sins, but it is well also to confess our venial sins.

What can those do who may not access the Sacrament of Reconciliation? If someone is in a faraway distant land or on a battlefield and dying, what do they do? What even should we do if we become ill with a virus and feel life slipping away and fear that no priest will be able to hear our Confession?

In such situations, we are reminded that God has bound salvation to the Sacraments, but He Himself is not bound by His Sacraments. St. Maximilian Kolbe wrote to his followers shortly before WWII:

"Whoever can, should receive the Sacrament of Penance.  Whoever cannot, because of prohibiting circumstances, should cleanse his soul by acts of perfect contrition: i.e., the sorrow of a loving child who does not consider so much the pain or reward as he does the pardon from his father and mother to whom he has brought displeasure."

The Forgiveness of Mortal Sins: An Act of Perfect Contrition

Thus, there is one additional means to receive forgiveness: An Act of Perfect Contrition. This, too, is the only way that protestants with valid Baptism, but without valid Confession, can be saved. We know that there is no salvation outside of the Church, but for those souls who die seemingly separated from the Church, we must pray that they can make a perfect Act of Contrition, repent of their sins, long for union with God and His Church, and thus cheat the devil and merit a crown of glory.

There are two kinds of contrition (i.e., sorrow) that we can have for our sins. The most common is imperfect contrition which is sorrow out of a fear of losing Heaven or suffering in Hell. The other is perfect contrition which is sorrow entirely out of a love of God and regret for offending Him.

The Catholic Encyclopedia on Contrition states: "Catholic teaching distinguishes a twofold hatred of sin; one, perfect contrition, rises from the love of God Who has been grievously offended; the other, imperfect contrition, arises principally from some other motives, such as loss of heaven, fear of hell, the heinousness of sin, etc. (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, ch. iv de Contritione)."

While those who are dying without Confession and with mortal sin on their souls will need to make such a perfect Act of Contrition in order to avoid hell, we too can seek to make perfect acts of contrition whenever we sin, even if we plan to soon seek out the Sacrament of Confession and receive absolution.

The formula for an Act of Contrition:

O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven, and the pains of hell; but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who are all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life.

The perfect act of contrition, though, is not just a mere fact of saying this formula. It truly requires the proper disposition of being detached from all sins - even venial sins. It is not an easy thing to do, especially those who sin often throughout their lives.

If you are in good health now, make a resolution to say 3 Hail Marys every day to ask for the grace to die in the state of grace with Last Rites.

 The Forgiveness of Venial Sins:

What has been mentioned so far is the forgiveness of mortal sins, those that would deprive a soul of Heaven. The Sacrament of Confession and Perfect Acts of Contrition would both remove mortal sins and venial sins. Is there, however, a way to remit venial sin by itself? There actually is.

However, an important clarification: assuming a person has both moral sin and venial sin on his soul, it is not possible to remove only the venial sins this way and leave the mortal sins for the Confessional. Why? St. Thomas Aquinas explains:

"As stated above (III:87:3), there is no remission of any sin whatever except by the power of grace, because, as the Apostle declares (Romans 4:8), it is owing to God's grace that He does not impute sin to a man, which a gloss on that passage expounds as referring to venial sin. Now he that is in a state of mortal sin is without the grace of God. Therefore no venial sin is forgiven him" (Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 87: The remission of venial sin, Article 4)

For those, however who only have venial sins on their souls, the Angelic Doctor continues by explaining what the means for remitting the venial sins are:

"No infusion of fresh grace is required for the forgiveness of a venial sin, but it is enough to have an act proceeding from grace, in detestation of that venial sin, either explicit or at least implicit, as when one is moved fervently to God. Hence, for three reasons, certain things cause the remission of venial sins: first, because they imply the infusion of grace, since the infusion of grace removes venial sins, as stated above (Article 2); and so, by the Eucharist, Extreme Unction, and by all the sacraments of the New Law without exception, wherein grace is conferred, venial sins are remitted. 

"Secondly, because they imply a movement of detestation for sin, and in this way the general confession [i.e. the recital of the Confiteor or of an act of contrition, the beating of one's breast, and the Lord's Prayer conduce to the remission of venial sins, for we ask in the Lord's Prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses."

"Thirdly, because they include a movement of reverence for God and Divine things; and in this way a bishop's blessing, the sprinkling of holy water, any sacramental anointing, a prayer said in a dedicated church, and anything else of the kind, conduce to the remission of venial sins" (Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 87: The remission of venial sin, Article 3)

Thus, we learn that the Sacraments, such as receiving Holy Communion, remit venial sin, although we of course may never receive Holy Communion without prior Sacramental Confession for mortal sin. We also learn that the Confiteor, the Our Father, and blessing ourselves with Holy Water all remit venial sin.

So if you find yourself away from the Sacrament of Confession, do not lose heart. Make use of the prayers and Sacramentals at your disposal.

Read more >>